March 9, 2017 | Vol. 115 no. 17 | middleburycampus.com
Charles Murray Visit Provokes Uproar Organized Protest Derails Speech, Campus Faces Deep Divisions
By Alex Newhouse & Ellie Reinhardt Features Editor & Editor-in-Chief
Tufts sports information office MICHAEL O’HARA
Students, professors and community members participate in rally outside McCullough Student Center (top). Protests inside Wilson Hall disrupt Charles Murray’s planned talk (bottom).
On Feb. 22, the Middlebury College American Enterprise Institute Club published a group op-ed in The Campus that extended an “invitation” to the Middlebury College community “to encourage robust discussion and expose the Middlebury Community to diverse thoughts, opinions and understandings on the important topics of today,” according to the authors. The event was a lecture by political scientist and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) WH Brady Scholar, Charles Murray. Soon after the announcement of Murray’s talk, both students and faculty began organizing in opposition. The reasons why Charles Murray sparked such passionate resistance and controversy are complicated and diverse, and motivations among those opposed to him were varied. Murray is considered one of the leading libertarian academics in the United States and has had significant influence on both political science and policymaking; for example, his work influenced the welfare debate during the 1990s. Although he was invited to the College to speak on his most recent book, Coming Apart, which attempts to track and explain a growing divide between white “intellectual elite” and white working class people, Murray is best known for his work, “The Bell Curve.” This book has been fiercely debated since its publication in 1994, as it posits links between intelligence and race based on differences in average IQ scores between races. SEE PAGE 12
protest, talk garner media attention By Christian Jambora Managing Editor National news and media outlets have been spotlighting the oncampus protests against Charles Murray, a libertarian columnist and sociologist who, due to student demonstrations, was prevented from delivering a guest lecture on Thursday, March 2. The events and their aftermath drew attention from major publications and broadcast programs including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, PBS NewsHour and Fox News. The majority of sources ran pieces denouncing the protest as well as the altercation that resulted in the neck injury of Allison Stanger, an international politics and economics professor who moderated the virtual questionand-answer session with Murray. In his piece “A Violent Act on Free Speech” published in The Atlantic, Peter Beinart, a political columnist and contributing editor for the magazine, pointed to the protests as evidence that “something has gone badly wrong on the campus left.” Referring to the recent protests against a planned speech delivered by Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley, Beinart wrote, “If what happened at Berkeley, and now at Middlebury, goes unchallenged, sooner or later, liberals will get shouted down too.” SEE MURRAY, PAGE 13
SGA Proposes Campus Dining Poll results reveal Appeals Process for strong preference for “open dining” Invited Speakers By Will DiGravio News Editor
inside
Junior Senator Hannah Pustejovsky ’18 introduced a bill at the March 3 meeting of the Student Government Association (SGA) that, if passed, would recommend that the College administration develop “an appeals process through which students can voice their dissent and disapproval of speakers, forums and public events that violate community standards, in order to create a system of checks and balances.” Pustejovsky drafted the bill in the wake of student protests that prevented Dr. Charles Murray from delivering a lecture on campus last Thursday. (See “Charles Murray Visit Provokes Uproar” for full coverage.) According to Pustejovsky, the appeals process would serve as a forum through which students could present arguments against an invited speaker. “If students feel as strongly about a speaker as they did this
week, I was hoping to provide a forum in which they could express their thoughts in a caselike format, with evidence and an argument in order to support their need. Then, possible solutions could include an adjustment to the event, calling for a teach in or discussion panel that provides more than one viewpoint, or less institutional support for an event,” she said. “I want to again stress that this is all in the very beginning stages and I hope to have further discussions with my constituents about what would best fit their needs.” At their March 5 meeting, the SGA Senate voted to form an ad hoc committee to draft a final version of the bill. Members of the committee include Pustejovsky, Wonnacott Senator Angie McCarthy ’19, Brainerd Senator Kyle Wright ’19.5, Sophomore Senator Emmanuel Duran ’19, Junior Senator Lily Wilson ’18, Feb Senator Alec Fleischer ’20.5, Feb
From Feb. 21-24, the Campus conducted a voluntary studentwide survey to gather feedback on the potential changes to the dining system. Over 960 responses were recorded. Here is a sampling of the feedback we received.
Visit middleburycampus.com for more statistics.
SEE SGA, PAGE 13
CHILI-FEST IN MIDDLEBURY PREVIEW
CHARLES MURRAY PROTEST AND RESPONSES
PAGE 3
PAGE 12
TALK ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PAGE 19
2 NEWS
SGA Update By Kyle Naughton SGA Correspondent
The Feb. 26 meeting of the Student Government Association (SGA) began with the introductions of the newly elected Feb senator, Alec Fleischer ’20.5, and the new Junior senator, Lily Wilson ’18. Both expressed their excitement to work alongside fellow senators in the upcoming months. President Karina Toy ’17 then announced that additional senate elections will be held near spring break, in which students will vote for every seat except Feb senators. President Toy announced the results from her Financial Aid survey, which garnered a 31 percent response rate that represents around 10 percent of the student body and highlights the differences between first generation students and non-first generation students. Such information may be used to promote the inclusion of Financial Aid activities during orientation or to encourage first-generation students to meet with Student Financial Services, yet the Senate will continue to discuss different possibilities. The Senate then unanimously passed both the SGA Finance Committee Policies Bill and the Club Sports Funding Bill, both of which were sponsored by President Toy and the SGA Finance Committee (SGAFC) Chair, Kevin Benscheidt ’17.5. The SGA Finance Committee Policies Bill aims to replace the previous SGA Finance Committee Guidelines to streamline funding decisions, while also limiting the SGAFC to funding only eight weekends of competitions per club sport season. The Club Sports Funding Bill implements a predetermined funding cap for each club sport based on its past three years’ worth of expenditures. The March 5 SGA meeting began with an update on ten-o’clock Ross. President Toy informed the Senate that the probation on the program would end on March 6, but also confirmed the possibility of moving it to Proctor dining hall. The Senate then unanimously approved to move ten-o’clock Ross to teno’clock Proctor, which serve fruits and other desserts instead of cereal and ice cream. This new program will begin next week. The Senate then began to discuss Charles Murray’s lecture last Thursday, allowing outside Middlebury community members to contribute their opinions and concerns. Senator Wright began the discussion with a defense of his decision not to support an emergency Senate session prior to Murray’s arrival, an action that was supported by CoChair of Community Council Travis Sanderson ’19 and Community Council member Charles Rainey ’19. Senator Wright believed that this emergency session as well as the legislation drafted by Rainey would take attention away from the protestors’ goals. Rainey responded by articulating his disappointment with the SGA’s inaction prior to Murray’s talk. The entire executive board of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) club was also present, expressing their disapproval over the actions taken against their guest speaker, Charles Murray, and defending their right to invite individuals that challenge the student body. The club also asserted its status as a nonpartisan think-tank that promotes rigorous political discussion and remains open to all Middlebury students. Junior Senator Hannah Pustejovsky ’18 then proposed a Community Standards in Public Events Bill that would establish an appeals process through which students may express their disapproval of speakers or events on campus that violate community standards. Senator Pustejovsky expressed her hope that this bill would provide institutional support for students who feel ostracized by any upcoming events, while members of the AEI board remained wary of the potential censorship that could result from such an appeals process. The Senate ultimately tabled the bill, establishing an ad hoc committee comprised of a select group of senators to further review the legislation. Read more coverage on page 1.
| March 9, 2017
Posse Plus Retreat Focuses on Identity and Community community and pertinent to national discussion,” he said. “Posse scholars are leaders and we hope that they and their guests Middlebury Posse scholars attended a will return to campus and lead around retreat this past weekend, March 3-5. The these topics.” Martinez noted that he hoped these constudents were accompanied by College faculty, staff and other students. This annual versations will create a more unified camretreat is centered around a theme chosen pus. “I believe the more students we have by the Posse Foundation. This year, the talking about divisions within our Middletheme was “Us Vs. Them: Division, Com- bury Community, the more likely it is for munity and Identity in American Society.” students to act on these divisions and move The retreat and theme aim to engage Posse forward to a more inclusive campus,” he scholars and others in discussions about said. The Posse Foundation recruits students pertinent issues on the campus-wide and who are commonly neglected and undernational level. Over 160 students and 25 staff and fac- represented in the College Admissions Process. The Foundation provides these ulty attended the retreat. Geovany Martinez ’19 attended the Pos- students with four-year, full-tuition leadsePlus Retreat for the second time since ership scholarships at one of its 57 partner arriving at Middlebury. Compared to last colleges or universities. At these instituyear’s retreat, Martinez noted that students tions, the scholars are a part of a cohort of had more opportunities to contribute their nine other Posse scholars. These dynamic, diverse teams are deideas and connect signed to create com“I believe the more with one another. munity and support “The dynamics of students we have within the Posses and the space made me across Posses at diftalking about divisions want to be there,” ferent colleges and he said. “The retreat within our Middlebury universities. provides the space The College partcommunity, the more for conversations nered with the Posse that don’t normally likely it is for students ... Foundation in 1998 occur on campus. When students are to move forward to a more and currently accepts Posses from the Poson campus, they have inclusive campus.” se chapters in New to juggle course work and extra-curricular geovany martinez ’19 York, Chicago and Los Angeles. The Colactivities. However, lege coordinated with once we go away from Middlebury for a weekend with other stu- the Posse Foundation to plan the weekenddents, faculty and staff members, we have long retreat. From January to March, Posse scholars the time and energy to have these tough conversations. This time encourages us to gather away from their colleges or universicome back and begin having these conver- ties to engage in conversations surrounding sations with other students that were un- this theme. According to the Posse Foundaable to attend the retreat.” Martinez is also tion, this theme aimed to address some of the Posse Program intern at the Anderson the questions surrounding the polarizing political atmosphere in our nation and our Freeman Center (AFC). Miguel Fernandez, chief diversity of- cultural readiness to build walls against ficer and the College’s liaison to the Posse ideas that differ from our own instead of Foundation, shared similar thoughts about engaging with this difference. The goal of the weekend retreat. “We hope that by go- the theme is to begin discussions that graping off campus we can create a space where ple with the emergence of this polarization students feel comfortable to engage in deep but also to look at ways to use dialogue to dialogue on challenging topics that are rel- break down these barriers. evant to them personally, to our College By Catherine Pollack Contributing Writer
Protests in Wilson Hall Disrupt charles Murray
top: michael borenstein; bottom: michael o’hara
EatReal Forum Explains Meat Reduction Plan By Elaine Velie News Editor EatReal held an open forum last Monday to explain their plan to reduce the quantity of meat served in the dining hall. The student-run club presented a slideshow both explaining why they are proposing this plan and how the plan would be implemented. EatReal cited environmental and human rights concerns, animal welfare and student health as the motivating factors behind the plan’s proposal. “EatReal and dining services are working together to reduce the amount of meat, particularly industrial meat, in the dining halls by 10 to 30 percent and replace it with higher quality, more sustainable meat, other protein sources and other more sustainable foods,” said EatReal member Ashley Babcock ’17. The plan suggests a ten percent decrease in the quantity of meat served in the dining halls over three years, totalling a 30 percent decrease. The plan is still open to student input. “After the first year’s 10 percent reduction, there would be opportunity for students to voice their concerns and talk about if it worked well and if they want to continue reducing the quantity of meat further, so it wouldn’t be set in stone,” Babcock said.
“Reallocating money away from industrial meat towards these more sustainable options... is an opportunity to decrease Middlebury’s carbon footprint.” Ash Babcock ’17
Co-President of EatReal Meat reduction would work in a few ways. “We could easily cut meat into smaller pieces, which would be a really good way to reduce waste. Another option is to reduce the amount of meat in soups and salads, and then another option is incorporating meat into other dishes. This also does not mean that plain meat options would be eliminated,” Babcock said. It was also noted that there would still be meat available at every lunch and dinner. “Reallocating money away from industrial meat towards these more sustainable options, including higher quality, better tasting meat, is an opportunity to decrease Middlebury’s carbon footprint without raising dining’s budget,” Babcock said. EatReal also clarified that their meat reduction proposal would not increase the budget of dining services. “Environmental concerns are definitely a huge part of the reason we are interested in this change, agriculture accounts for a huge portion of greenhouse gas emissions,” said Sarah Koenigsberg ‘17. “The best estimates are between 15 and 18 percent for global contributions to carbon emissions by animal agricultural, and that is about as much, if not more, than the entire transportation sector.” EatReal also explained the human rights and animal welfare issues pertaining to industrial meat, particularly involving the meat packing industry and the prevalence of factory farms. The senior members of EatReal then explained the health and nutritional motivation behind reducing meat in the dining halls. They displayed a series of calculations based on the amount of meat the dining hall serves. According to EatReal’s calculations, students receive 20 more grams of protein a day, from meat alone, than the FDA recommends. Other noted health concerns included the use of antibiotics in meat and, ultimately, elevated mortality rates among heavy meat eaters.
local Vt. Senate Unanimously Passes Immigration Bill
very accepting.” Senate President Tim Ashe also Staff Writer spoke with VPR, elaborating on the On Thursday, Feb. 23, a group of meaning of the unanimous vote. He said, Burlington High School (BHS) students “[The vote] suggests that at a time where eagerly looked on as members of the Verthere’s so much polarization, people of mont Senate joined together in a unanigood faith, good conscience, protective mous 30-0 vote to pass an immigration of our Constitution, inclusive of our valbill aimed at limiting Vermont’s role in ues, can put aside party politics, join enforcing federal immigration laws. together and unite to send a conceptual The Rutland Herald reported that message.” the bill “aims to keep state, county and However, the bill is expected to face local law enforcement agencies from opposition as it heads to the Vermont helping federal auHouse this month. On thorities enforce imMarch 2, the House “[The vote] suggests Judiciary Committee migration laws.” The bill, co-authat at a time where reviewed the meathored by Gov. Phil there’s so much po- sure, but took no acScott (R), State Attion. House Minority torney General T.J. larization, people of Leader Don Turner Donovan (D) and good faith, good con- (R) openly criticized other lawmakers, the bill, telling the science, protective of Burlington grants Gov. Scott the Free sole authority in apour Constitution, in- Press, “It sends the proving any potential message that they’re clusive of our values, not going to get any state and local police efforts to enforce can put aside party help from Vermont federal immigration enforcement politics, join together law laws. Vermont Public when they need it.” Radio (VPR) reported and unite to send a This matter is that the bill will “also of particular conconceptual message.” prohibit police agencern in small towns Tim Ashe close to the Canacies from collecting personal information dian border, such as that might be used Swanton, Vermont. for a federal registry With the U.S. Border Patrol headquarbased on religion or immigration staters far closer to the Swanton Police tus.” Department than the nearest Vermont The bill’s passing was welcomed State Police barracks, Swanton police by the 11 BHS students in attendance. officers often turn to U.S. border agents “My family…we’re from a Muslim backfor assistance. Chief Leonard Stell of the ground, and we’re also refugees…” Swanton Police Department said in a reNoorto Mohamed, a Somalian immicent interview with the Burlington Free grant, told VPR. “But even though we’re Press that “[The border agents are] our citizens, we don’t really feel a part of closest backup when we need them for America that much … this has definitely emergencies … Do we go knocking on helped, seeing all the Americans who are doors and say, ‘Hey, are you illegally in Jules Morales
Seven days vermont
BHS student members of the International Club observed the Senate proceedings. the United States?’ No. It’s not my duty to ask them if they’re a US citizen.” Lawmakers fear that relationships such as this one will be threatened by the immigration bill. Skepticism surrounding the bill is not limited to the state capitol and police agencies. Both the Vermont ACLU and Migrant Justice see the bill as a step in the right direction, but hope that more steps will be taken in the near future to strengthen the bill and further protect immigrant communities. VT Digger reports that a top priority for both organizations is “consistency across the state in the implementation of [a] fair and impartial policing policy.” Jay Diaz, staff attorney for the Vermont branch of the ACLU, said in a recent interview, “While the words are meaningful, the law has the opportunity to be powerful. We’re not going to stand up to the bully in Washington if we don’t
include a reference to the fair and impartial policy here.” In an interview with The Campus, Migrant Justice spokesman Will Lambek stated, “The bill focuses on preventing potential future harm but does nothing to stop the actual harm that occurs as Vermont police continue to collude with federal authorities to deport immigrants living and working in the state. Without stronger legislation to mandate that police departments across the state implement the full Fair and Impartial Policing policy, Vermont will continue to be a party to Trump’s agenda of mass deportation.” He added that several states have “already gone farther than Vermont” in the measures taken within their respective immigration bills. Further House action on the bill is expected sometime this month.
What to Look for at this Weekend’s Chili Festival By Rebecca Walker Local Editor On Saturday, March 11, Main St., Middlebury will host its 9th annual Vermont Chili Festival. Every year, thousands of Vermonters come from across the state to join the chili festivities in downtown Middlebury, and this year should be no different. The Chili Festival will be take place from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, and award-winning chili plus free entertainment will energize the afternoon As usual, judges will be voting on the best chili in the categories of veggie, beef, chicken, game, kitchen sink and pork. This year, the Festival is also adding a new cat-
egory for ranking called “Anything But Chili.” The recipients of each of these distinctions will receive cash prizes and will also be eligible to receive the title of Best Overall Winner, for which there is a $1,000 cash prize. In addition, guests at the Chili Festival will have the opportunity to vote for their favorite chili and for the best booth. The competition will likely be tough this year since last year’s overall victors, Sabai Sabai, will be returning to the competition. Sabai Sabai participated in the Festival for the first time last March, and went home with the Best Overall title for their Thai flavored chili which they served with tortilla chips and peanuts.
Harry Cramer
Middlebury Campus
“We will certainly be serving chili again this year,” shared a waitress from Sabai Sabai. “We are just excited to have fun.” Middlebury Foods, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating quality food at affordable prices, will also be returning to the Chili Festival this Saturday with a vegetarian chili that is made with vegetables from local producers. “Last year, Middlebury Foods’ Chili Fest debut resulted in a second place finish in the vegetarian category,” explained club member Charlie Mitchell ’18. “This year we are going for gold, but we are most excited to meet more students and neighbors, hand out stickers and coupons and sample some chili from the competition!”
Other award-winning participants from last year’s Festival include Park Squeeze, The Lobby, Indulge Salon, Middlebury College Brisket and La Boca Wood Fired Pizza. The festivities will continue even after all the chili is eaten with after parties at 51 Main and Two Brothers Tavern. Attendees can expect live music from Mellow Yellow at 51 Main and from Snake Mountain Bluegrass and The Horse Traders at Two Brothers. As in past years, the funds raised at the Vermont Chili Festival this weekend will support the work of the Better Middlebury Partnership in the surrounding community.
opinions
Disclaimer: Reader op-eds do not reflect the opinion of The Middlebury Campus editorial board.
Developing The Campus Dialogue Each week, the Editorial Board of The Middlebury Campus publishes an editorial, a statement meant to reflect the “official position” of our student publication. As a board of over thirty students, we typically spend two days debating and discussing
From the Editors
editorial board
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Ellie Reinhardt MANAGING EDITOR Christian Jambora BUSINESS MANAGER Julien Miller NEWS EDITORS Caroline Agsten, Will DiGravio, Nick Garber, Elaine Velie OPINIONS EDITORS Hannah Blackburn, Nina Colombotos, Sara Hodgkins, Thomas Leaycraft, Edward O’Brien SPORTS EDITORS Will Case, Emily Bustard, Sebastian Sanchez, Rob Erickson LOCAL EDITORS Annie Grayer, Alessandria Schumacher, Rebecca Walker FEATURES EDITORS Sarah Asch, Renee Chang, Charmaine Lam, Alex Newhouse ARTS AND SCIENCE EDITORS Finne Murphy, Sabine Poux, Yvette Shi PHOTOS EDITORS Michael Borenstein, Anahi Naranjo, Michael O’Hara DESIGN EDITORS Emma Hatheway, Julia Hatheway, Cordelia Prouvost CARTOON EDITOR Nolan Ellsworth ONLINE EDITORS Pyone Aye, Jerrica Davy COPY EDITOR Rachel Iacono THE CAMPUS VOICE HOSTS Sara Hodgkins OFFICE MANAGER Sarah Koenigsberg The content written within the Opinions pages may cause emotional distress. Please exercise discretion. The Opinions pages of The Middlebury Campus provide a forum for constructive and respectful dialogue on substantive issues. With this in mind, The Campus reserves the right to deny publication of all or part of a submission for any reason. This includes, but is not limited to: the making of assertions based on hearsay; the relation of private conversations; the libelous mention of unverifiable events; the use of vulgar language or personal attacks. Any segment of a submitted article that contains any of the aforementioned will be removed before publication. Contributors will be allowed to reference prior articles published in the Opinions section or announcements for the public record. If a reference is made to prior articles, the submission will be considered a letter to the editor. The opinions expressed by contributors to the Opinions section, as well as reviews, columns, editorial comics and other commentary, are views of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the newspaper. Submit works directly to the Opinions Editors, Drawer 30, campus@ middlebury.edu or via the paper’s web site at www. middleburycampus.com. To be considered for publications, submissions must be received by 5 p.m. Sunday. The Campus reserves the right to edit all submissions. The Middlebury Campus (USPS 556-060), the student newspaper of Middlebury College, is published by The Middlebury Campus Publications. Publication is every Thursday of the academic year, except during official college vacation periods and final examinations. Editorial and business offices are located in Hepburn Hall Annex, Middlebury College. The Middlebury Campus is produced on Apple Macintosh computers using Adobe InDesign CS5 and is printed by the Press Republican in New York. The advertising deadline for all display and classified advertising is 5 p.m. Friday for the following week’s issue. Mailing address: The Middlebury Campus, Drawer 30, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt., 05753. Business phone: (802) 443-5737. Please address distribution concerns to the Business Director. First class postage paid at Middlebury, Vt., 05753.
the nuances of a variety of topics. Our conversations are constructive and often challenge us to find common ground on divisive and highly contentious issues. While our board is representative of only a small sect of students here at Middlebury, we see immense value in the time we have to engage with one another. This week, the Editorial Board decided to stand down and instead use this space to highlight the range of voices and opinions emerging following Dr. Charles Murray’s lecture and the student protests that ensued on March 2. We have received a flood of submissions, and we encouraged members within our own board to write
their own pieces and delve deeper into nuance. In the pages of the Opinions Section, and in our coverage of the event, we strive to shed light and offer a range of perspectives on what occurred before, during and after Dr. Murray’s visit. We pledge to uphold the highest level of journalistic integrity and to practice responsible journalism. We also honor our role as a student newspaper representing the voices of all students. This week, we chose only to print pieces received from members of the Middlebury and academic community. Submissions were selected to print based on the
diversity they brought to the greater conversation surrounding last week’s events. All other pieces can be accessed online via our website, middleburycampus.com. Sincerely, Ellie Reinhardt ’17 Editor-in-Chief Christian Jambora ’17.5 Managing Editor The Editorial Board of The Middlebury Campus
Coming Together I went to sleep last Thursday with a sour taste in my mouth, even after an enjoyable
NOTES FROM THE DESK Opinions editor Thomas Leaycraft ’20 writes about compassion in discourse.
dinner with friends and a sitcom marathon. I attended Dr. Murray’s talk on his latest book “Coming Apart,” eager to better understand some of the frustrations of the Trump coalition. But more importantly, I was excited for the question and answer session to voice my arguments against intellectualized racism, forged through hours of research and discussions with friends and colleagues at The Campus. I do not resent my fellow students for denying me, and much of the Middlebury community, a platform to voice our rea-
soned and well-articulated criticisms of ideas and their affront to America’s sacred principle of equality. However, the hatred and anger in the eyes of many members of my beloved community truly rattled me, as did the chorus of boos and the harassment of college officials and AEI’s two speakers during introductory remarks. I saw protesters make threats against students who kindly asked them to be quiet. And of course, all this simmering anger exploded later that night when a mob assaulted Dr. Murray and Professor Stanger. Of course, I admire the passion of our student body – this passion is part of why I love Middlebury. And indeed, while Dr. Murray’s work has been somewhat misrepresented in recent weeks, I share the anger over his use of flawed research, which belittles women and many peoples of color. Dr. Murray’s flawed science and departure from the ideas that “all men are created
equal,” which informs his appalling policy proposals are truly reprehensible. However, violence and hatred undermines the cause of social justice. Civil rights, apartheid and the Indian independence movement – all experience shows that the dream of progress comes when we dream our love and compassion into the world. Social justice is a struggle but not a battle. ‘Callout-culture’ and a bigot witch hunt will achieve nothing. The political science department is not racist, nor are President of Middlebury Laurie L. Patton, or AEI. Scholars like Murray can challenge the humanity of minorities, but the compassion of movements like the Civil Rights movement counteracts the divisiveness and reminds us of our shared humanity. Peaceful protests and civil disobedience can achieve great things, but changing people’s hearts is only possible through the rich potency of love.
Why We Protest As soon as word got out that Middlebury College would host a lecture by Charles Murray (CM), students gathered
op-ed
Anna Jacobsen ’16.5, Joshua Claxton ’18 and Austin Kahn ’17.5 consider the implications of last week’s protest. and began organizing to ensure that he would not have a platform to share his ideas on our campus. Why did a large and diverse group of students put their lives on hold to plan and participate in organized dissent (knowingly breaking college policies and putting their education in jeopardy)? The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), one of the most reputable civil rights organizations in the U.S., takes a firm stance in defining Murray’s political position as one of white nationalism that promotes eugenics. According to SPLC, Charles Murray, “has become one of the most influential social scientists in America, using racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor.” The SPLC goes on to say that “Murray, a statistically minded sociologist by training, has spent decades working to rehabilitate long-discredited theories of IQ and heredity, turning them into a foundation on which to build a conservative theory of society that rejects equality and egalitarianism.” Murray’s ideas and research were fundamental in driving a political agenda that we believe to be more mainstream on this campus than many admit. Opposed to addressing the lasting damages done by centuries of racist
laws enacted by a culture that privileges whiteness, many people on this campus believe that people of color in the U.S. simply do not work hard enough. On Thursday, demonstrators held signs that read “Resist White Supremacy,” “No Eugenics,” and “Expect Resistance Here” as they collectively read a statement that touched upon the deep history of eugenics programs in the state of Vermont throughout the 1930s, when Native Abenaki people were targeted for state-sanctioned forced sterilizations. In articles and open letters circulated before the event was scheduled to take place, students and alumni declared that under no circumstances should the College provide a platform for CM’s white supremacist ideologies. Yes, freedom of speech is important and should be upheld in an academic setting; however, there are clearly fallacies within the administration’s interpretation of this constitutional provision. Not all opinions are worth amplifying or legitimizing. There are some theories that fabricate statistics and are rooted in hate. And let us notice the context in which we choose to invoke free speech. There would be no cries in defense of the first amendment if student groups had brought a holocaust denier; no one would be yelling free speech if students were opposed to a climate change denier coming to campus. Neither the administration nor any department would have any issues denouncing these potential lecturers for their faulty science or hateful views. Yet as we saw on Thursday, our professors made an exception to offer a platform to racialized genetic inferiority, in the name of “rhetorical resilience” over academic honesty.
The Political Science Department endorsed Charles Murray as a fellow leader in academic thought. Why do we only care about free speech when it calls into question the genetic inferiority of our fellows students. What is the point of academia, if our political science professors can’t discern between conservatives and hate speech extremists? We are deeply sorry that Professor Stanger was injured and hope that she gets well soon. Regrettable acts of violence aside, this protest was absolutely essential. If the rise of Donald Trump has taught us anything, it’s that the world beyond Middlebury College is n ot a classroom. If racist sh*t comes up, “rational” debate cannot dismantle it or effectively combat its growing power. The idea that bigotry will collapse under academia’s enlightened rationality is false. We must name it and deprive it of power. Robbing Charles Murray of one platform for his racialized pseudoscience is a small but important part of that resistance. PS: Here are the two URLs that are hyperlinked in the piece Eugenics in VT: http://www.uvm. edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/VT/VT.html Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/fightinghate/extremist-files/individual/charlesmurray Editor’s Note: Last week, “An Open Letter From the Political Science Department” was accidentally ommitted from print publication of The Campus. Please find the piece at middleburycampus.com
opinions
March 9 , 2017 |
5
Free Speech vs. Elevated Speech “Let him speak,” I hear some of my peers say, looking upon the Charles Mur-
Reader Op-ed
Elizabeth Lee ’17 writes about nuances in defining free speech. ray protest with distaste. “He has a right to free speech.” As a firm believer in debate and civil discourse, I wonder if such a critique may be misguided. For too long a flawed notion of ‘free speech’ has given way for individuals in marginalizing people of color and gender minorities. While I defend his right to speak his mind, I find that providing Murray with an elevated platform at a college to project his largely disproven ideas extends beyond the realm of ‘free speech’ and does more harm than good. As Americans, we find ourselves lucky enough to be able to talk about our political beliefs without legal consequence. The government cannot throw us in jail or punish us for the words we write or the things we say. (With the exception of lying under oath, violating security procedures in contracts, and hate speech.) This is our constitutional right to free speech. In contrast, the right to free speech does not mean that individuals or institutions have a positive burden to offer all ideas a stage, a microphone and a large space for an audience to listen.
It does not mean that academic insti- Mr. Murray’s ideas. First, co-sponsorship by the Polititutions or students must guarantee all individuals 45 minutes of unchallenged cal Science Department and an opening and broadcasted speech, no matter how speech by the President of Middlebury harmful or false the arguments are. Laurie L. Patton, gave the speaker an aura of legitimaClearly, student procy. Instead of elutesters were not vio“This is our consti- cidating the fact lating Mr. Murray’s First Amendment tutional right to free that Mr. Murray has no peer-rerights when they speech. In contrast, the viewed work (and spoke out against race-based him. They were right to free speech does his analysis is largely changing the terms not mean that individufalse), the introof the discussion. This is not to say als or institutions have a ductory remarks that students ought positive burden to offer emphasized how influential his not engage with Mr. al ideas a stage.” books have been Murray’s ideas at all. and that he was a At the point where fellow at a thinkcolleges and univertank. President sities have discretion over the way ideas are presented, Patton did very openly state that she I believe that they ought to maximize disagreed with his views, but avoided the academic experience of such ideas. saying that his work does not meet acaThey must take into account the impli- demic standards. While students have cations of the format of the speech, of- the right to bring speakers of all kinds to ficial co-sponsorships and how students campus, the university itself must be recan meaningfully engage with the topic sponsible and academically honest when at hand. Students should be able to com- giving such events a show of approval pare and contrast similar ideas in history through co-sponsorship. Students have and analyze the impact such writings had the obligation to keep academic instituon society as a whole. To that effect, I do tions accountable to a truthful and wellnot think Middlebury made sufficient rounded education. Second, and more importantly, the avenues for students to discuss, tackle and fully understand the implications of way in which Murray’s talk was formatted
did not allow for equal discussion. Were students, especially students of color, expected to just sit and listen to an individual speak for 45 minutes about how they were inferior to Whites? Do Asians have to accept Murray’s false characterization that we have “higher IQ’s” than other races, and as a result become the metaphorical ‘punching bag’ for issues surrounding race and class? Where was the avenue to speak out against such ideas? How could students engage in debate on an equal playing field when Mr. Murray had a stage and a microphone, and we were just nameless and faceless members of the audience? Without a platform for legitimate debate, it seems that students had few non-disruptive tools to get their voices heard. Free speech is not the same as elevated speech. Places of higher education must take that distinction into account when deciding which ideas deserve elevated platforms and which ones are better expressed through other means, whether it is through equal discussion or debate. The aftermath of Murray’s talk has shed light on the deep divisions within Middlebury’s campus. While reconciliation will be a painful process, I hope that we can heal and grow together, creating a mutual understanding that does not marginalize or undermine any community members’ fundamental voice or humanity.
Moving Beyond Rhetorical Resilience There are a lot of words, links and thoughts being put out into my Facebook
Reader Op-ed
Jiya Pandya ’17 writes on the many facets of last week’s protest.
newsfeed with regards to last evening’s Charles Murray event by my Middlebury communities right now. Here is my very long spiel on every step of what has unfolded to be a messy, difficult, complicated process for us all. Step One: Bringing Charles Murray to this campus. I personally believe that there are other more rigorous, more influential, less condescending and less racist conservative scholars and academics that could have been brought to campus from whom and in conversation with whom I would be happy to learn. If this is intellectual battle, and I am not sure it is, there were more intellectuals to choose from (even from the list of AEI fellows). I am open to a debate about class differences in America, about the bubble we inhabit, about the politics of poverty. When that comes coupled with arguments about genetics, race and culture, I think we lose the entire point of an equal, intellectual debate. Step Two: ‘Institutional’ Endorsement of Murray. First, I hearken back to my comments about intellectual rigor above. What are the precedents we are setting for a standard of scholarship within this community? Second, I believe that President of Middlebury Laurie L. Patton, Professor of Political Science and Department Chair Bertram Johnson and the heads of the AEI campus chapter are incredibly intelligent, thoughtful people — however, given Mr. Murray’s work, more thought should have gone into the ways this would be interpreted within this community. Here are a few examples of the problematic ways we have been according such time, space and resources to Mr. Murray: having the President introducing him, offering departmental endorsement, setting it up in a space the size of Dana or Wilson, having it be a speech instead of on a
panel, having significant police/security presence, widely announcing it merely a week before he was scheduled to speak. I have had to read Murray for class. I will engage with his ideas within the classroom. Bringing him to speak on a stage on campus is different, because it is not a space where we can take pause and respond to his work critically. He has been answering questions about his books for years. Two hours of listening to him, even a week of preparing questions, do not measure up to that — I repeat, that is not an equal exchange. Speakers are teaching moments within an educational setting. I hope you understand how the structure of this event can be seen as an invalidation of some folks’ beliefs (and humanity) and to some others, a provocation. To emphasize his presence in a top-bottom way is, in some ways, to provoke a reaction. I am all for academic distance, theorizing and conversation, but if that seems to come at the emotional cost of some of my peers, I wish that those who made space for Mr. Murray had reflected more carefully on what debate means, and had considered alternative ways of placing him into our campus conversation. Step Three: Organizing Dissent. Student and faculty activists had about one week to organize. We are not professional organizers. There was no way this would not have been messy. To those who asked if we, the organizers, had even read “The Bell Curve”, you also go to Middlebury. Is it a fair expectation to have everyone read all his prolific writing in a week whilst also being a student here? I personally read about 150 pages of Murray last weekend, and still wanted to listen to him. I agree with many who say that Mr. Murray’s voice and views are a reality in our world. But when I say I wanted to listen, this does not mean I did not want to dissent. The two are not antithetical to one another. If I had complete control of the situation (which I am glad I didn’t because that misses the point of what it means to learn to organize and collaborate), I would have wanted to protest him outside, carry our voices and our signs and our dissent into the space and be allowed to force him
into dialogue. If he said something we were scared of those who verbally shut disagreed with, I would have wanted us down this event, but do not see Murray’s to be able to boo at him, shout back, and vitriol as equally scary, then you are then, during the Q&A, challenge him and choosing not to see the harm he perpetudisrupt the idea that this was an equal ates and misunderstanding why folks exchange. I, personally, did not want to like me, who wanted to listen to him, shut him down, because I see that as in- were protesting to begin with. This is not effective. To me, that is giving him what a matter of “us” versus “them.” To create he wants from us. That being said, I un- such a dichotomy is to ignore not only derstand why those who deemed that the fundamental racism of Murray’s arnecessary felt so, and I think we should guments, but also to not see the humanall pause and reflect upon why some of ity in each other. Step Five: Moving Forward. If it is our peers made that choice. Step Four: The Fall Out. There are lines, possible, I think we should move away of course. I in no way condone the physi- from talking about Charles Murray. He cal violence against Professor Stanger has had his share of attention, and by the looks of it, he has and Mr. enjoyed it. It seems Murray, to me that most of nor any “I am open to a debate us disapprove of violence about class differences in his ideas. We have against consensus there. student America, about the bubble If that is the case, protestwe inhabit, about the polilet’s talk about ers. These tics of poverty. When that where we disagree acts are with each other. undenicomes coupled with arguI think we should ably repments about race, genetics talk about what r e h e n civil discourse, resible, and and culture, I think we lose sistance and resilwe have the entire point of an equal ience mean for this to rethink campus, especialthe role intellectual debate.” ly given broader played by structural inequalactors exities and power ternal to this campus, be they security personnel differentials here at Middlebury, in the or agitators, in impacting our communi- U.S. and in the world. I think we should ty. We also have to rethink our reactivity, move, as a professor of mine pointed out, and the cruelty with which we at times from the rhetoric of resilience, which fachoose to respond. To those who yelled vors some, to material resilience, which obnoxious, personal, mean things to forces us all to be brave. I want us to our classmates who were on that stage, move from the idea of a debate to the shame on you. Simultaneously, to those work of fostering connection, empathy who glared at protesters, hurled insults and support for one another. Let us treat at them and have decided that there is the aftermath as a learning moment in no more to them than hatred and anger, the same way that some of us treated his shame on you too. To paint this situation coming here. We as a community have a as a binary of anti and pro-free speech, lot of growing to do. I personally believe or of anti and pro-white supremacy, as that I stand to learn more from you, my some of my peers have been doing, is to peers, my faculty and my campus, than I take away from the incredible, beauti- do from Mr. Murray. Thank you for reading this if you got ful nuance within and beyond the activist community. Mostly, it frightens me this far. Let us learn, converse and heal when my peers say any form of dissent together. should be punished. In my view, if you
6 opinions From Abroad: A Letter to President Patton
|March 9, 2017
Although we are physically removed from Middlebury, we assure you that we
op-ed
Students studying abroad respond to President Patton’s handling of last week’s protest. are closely following campus events and are writing to register our disappointment with the administration’s handling and characterization of the events of March 2. We watched through social media as the protests were planned and unfolded: they were peaceful, intentional and well-organized given the time constraints. On the night of Murray’s talk we tuned in to students’ livestreams and felt proud and inspired as we watched our friends exercise their right to speech through organized and peaceful protest. Unfortunately, communications from the administration have de-legitimized this expression of student will, clinging to flimsy free speech arguments while ignoring the many legitimate concerns leveled through letters and protest. That being said, we would like to address the following to President Patton: We are extremely troubled by your actions regarding Mr. Murray’s speech on Thursday. In your introductory remarks, you said that “Middlebury is committed to unlocking the potential and brilliance of every student no matter their race, their class, their sexual orientation, their religious orientation, their disabled status or any other demographic marker.” While we appreciate the sentiment, this claim is hard to believe. By letting this event proceed and attaching your name to it, we feel that you valorized and gave epistemological authority to a speaker who has disputed the “potential and brilliance” that exists in our student body on the basis of the factors you listed. Your “pro-
found disagreement” with Murray’s ideas isn’t enough because it signals that his unfounded assertions about the inferiority and pathology of underprivileged communities are up for debate at Middlebury. We are sure that you would not introduced a member of the KKK or a Holocaust denier and are certain you understand that civil discourse has boundaries. Thus, we question why you do not recognize attacks on POC humanity as violating norms. A debate in which we have to pretend that one group is inferior to another is not a legitimate or useful intellectual exercise; it is a cruel abuse of power. Middlebury claims to value “open discourse”, but failed to take into account power dynamics and the fact that free speech is not equal speech. In prioritizing Murray’s right to free speech over ours, we feel that you reaffirmed the idea that Middlebury as an institution was not made for certain groups. Your letter to the community only deepened our disillusionment. Despite championing “rhetorical resilience” and engagement with all sides, we feel that you have not practiced this yourself; you have demonized student protesters while refusing to consider the perspectives that their resistance and protest forced you to hear. You made no obvious attempt at nuance or compassion, failing to acknowledge the ways in which the invitation and sheltering of a white supremacist in the place that we live and study caused emotional and physical damage. By allowing a hostile agent into our home, berating us for not treating him civilly and then apologizing on our behalf, you ignored the historic danger of his assertions. You accuse us of failing to live up to Middlebury’s core values, but had we known that passively accepting bigoted pseudoscience was a core value, rest assured that we would have chosen to attend
different schools. An institution that does such an abysmal job at retaining students of color must be more self-aware, else it is doomed to fail and should. We feel that your letter legitimized a national media narrative which has characterized students, who never intended for violence to occur, as simultaneously spoiled elites and rioting thugs (the latter being racially charged.) This un-nuanced conversation has sought to invalidate the protests by citing the cost of tuition at Middlebury while ignoring the fact that Murray’s invitation was an attack on socioeconomically disadvantaged, primarily minority students. We are left to wonder if your disappointment and condemnation are meant to assure the world that Middlebury is not a “liberal bubble.” Was your letter merely an attempt to placate donors and trustees? The excitement we felt two years ago surrounding the appointment of a female, well-qualified and seemingly openminded president has abated and been replaced by feelings of disillusionment and resignation. As well-intentioned as it may be, we feel that your passion for “rhetorical resilience” seems to signal to certain groups that they should “just get over it” when their peers and professors deny their very humanity and right to exist on this campus. We feel that your commitment to students who have always felt unwelcome at Middlebury rings false and this latest episode proves that your administration does not value us the way you claim. Radical inclusivity is a principle to which this administration merely pays lip service. We demand better. We are ready to put in the work to realize this goal but ask that the administration, in kind, re-evaluates its recent actions and begins to demonstrate a tangible commitment to this college’s marginalized communities.
Signed, Toni Cross ‘18 Rabat, Morocco Eleanor Eagan ‘18 Rabat, Morocco Philip Brand ‘18.5 Amsterdam, Netherlands Sofi Hecht ‘18 Rabat, Morocco Sabina Latifovic ‘18 Paris, France Rose Adams ‘18.5 Rabat, Morocco Sierra Jackson ‘18 Nottingham, England Meg Sayre ‘18 Buenos Aires, Argentina Maddy Dickinson ‘18 Kunming, China Sanchea Chung ‘18 Atlanta, USA Mari Tanioka ‘18, Stockholm, Sweden Asia M-Funches ‘18 Atlanta, USA Jennifer Damian ‘18 Monterey, USA Olivia Tubio ‘18 Copenhagen, Denmark Mariana Oshana ‘18 Córdoba, Spain Anna Lueck ‘18.5 Amman, Jordan Claudia Huerta ‘18 Buenos Aires, Argentina Rachel Schneider ‘18 Berlin, Germany Fiona Mohamed ‘18 Glasgow, Scotland Anna Paritsky ‘17.5 Paris, France Caley Henderson ‘18 Kunming, China Sylvia Lynch ‘18 Yaoundé, Cameroun Ashley Simons ‘18 Atlanta, USA Elliott Miller ‘18, Beijing, China Bryce Williamson ‘18, Poitiers, France Nina Sweeney ‘18 Bordeaux, France Julia Trencher ‘18, Córdoba, Spain Deniz Bingul ‘18, Copenhagen, Denmark Emma Walker ‘18 Rabat, Morocco Adiza Mohammed ‘18 Rabat, Morocco Katie Mayopoulos ‘18 Madrid, Spain Tyler Farrell ‘18 Hanover, USA Robert Engel ‘18 Rabat, Morocco Daniel Buchman ‘18.5 Amman, Jordan Abdel Rodriguez ‘18 Rabat, Morocco Chelsea “Chi Chi” Chang ‘18 Xalapa, México Addie Mahdavi ‘18 New York City, USA Taylor Cook ‘18 New York City, USA
Nuance, Free Speech and Responsibility Like many who have written already, I want to provide my perspective on the
READER Op-ed
Erik Bleich, professor of political science, writes about free speech and the consequences of protest. events during Charles Murray’s recent visit. I write as a professor of political science, a scholar of free speech and hate speech, a teacher of courses on race, ethnicity, and diversity and a straight, white man, whose childhood included several years of poverty that included periods on food stamps. I have participated in discussions with a left-leaning group on campus since before the event, and was in sporadic contact with an AEI club member following the event. I have friends, colleagues and students on all sides. There has been a strong and unfortunate tendency to conflate three forms of protest that took place on the day: loud and raucous protests outside prior to the event, louder and more raucous protests inside the venue that eventually succeeded in forcing the event off the stage, and violent events that took place as participants left the building. I think conflating these is a mistake. Everyone I know has supported the preevent protests and roundly condemned the post-event violence. So I focus here exclusively on the “middle protest” — what happened in the room with Murray at the lectern. This has generated the most contentious debate on campus. The best arguments I’ve heard for shutting down Murray’s speech center on a complete rejection of his stance on biological racial differences, a stance that has formed the basis of truly harmful policies and attitudes. From this perspective, it did
not matter that he was not going to speak about The Bell Curve; he is on record as someone who at a minimum gives intellectual support to racists, and the College should not have given him a platform to convey any of his views. Who is next, people have asked, David Duke? Louis Farrakhan? If individuals’ core identities are challenged in ways that have led to hate crimes and genocide, why should we tolerate them on campus? I sympathize with the pain caused by Murray’s visit. I have listened carefully to the heart-wrenching fears that some of my students have of life in the contemporary United States. But I am not convinced by arguments for shutting down this event. It is all the less persuasive amid assertions that students were just exercising their free speech rights of “simultaneous dialogue” when they impeded Murray from delivering his lecture. This is a fundamental and deeply troubling misconception of free speech. Would the protesters approve of 50 white male students standing up to shout down Shaun King or TaNehisi Coates, or drowning out a lecture that decried masculinity as a threat to our society? The best arguments I’ve heard for condemning the shut-down are both philosophical and strategic. We cannot operate as a community of learners if guest speakers cannot present their ideas for us to debate as vehemently as required. As a specific tactic, the shut-down has split the very broad coalition of people on campus who are deeply sympathetic to students of marginalized backgrounds, forcing them to choose between free speech and being an ally to the activist protesters. It also drew national media attention to Middlebury in a way that reinforces the public’s visions of college students as “snowflakes,” all while making Murray look like a sympathetic victim and handing him a
bullhorn for his ideas. The protesters forced me to choose, and so I choose free speech. I do that recognizing that I now have to find other ways to reaffirm my commitment to diversity on campus and to supporting students with marginalized backgrounds. I am ready to do that as best I can. It is also important to note that the protesters forced everyone to choose, and several of my students of color were strongly opposed to the shut-down of Murray and firmly in favor of free speech. Two stated that they were being ostracized by friends for their positions. The fissures on campus run deep and in complicated directions. There is a second level of complexity and nuance that I hope can be recognized in our discussions. It is one that is sorely lacking in much of the media coverage. Not everyone protesting in the room that day was the same. They did not all protest for the same motives. They did not all anticipate the results. The student leaders certainly knew exactly what they were doing. They were alerted from several quarters that their actions would have truly detrimental effects of a wide variety of sorts, including on a personal level a risk of suspension or expulsion. Like many students in all periods of history, they did not listen. That is their prerogative, and I believe they earnestly felt that it was their moral duty to carry out this form of protest no matter what. But I have heard from some of the students and faculty who participated by standing up that they did not know the intent was to shut down his speech. Some thought the plan was to stand, shout, then have the core protesters walk out so Murray’s talk could go forward. They were looking forward to Allison Stanger’s pointed questions, and wanted to hear or pose other ones. Some just found themselves caught up in the moment and surrounded
by friends who all rose together and stayed standing. To remain seated or to sit down later seemed like it would be an insult to their friends and a tacit endorsement of Murray’s views. We should not assume that 150 students did this with the same knowledge or motives. That may be true of 50 or so leaders and core activists. But it was not true of everyone in the room. One final thought related to intent. I believe there have to be consequences for the in-room protesters. But because not all protesters were the same, those consequences should be varied. We have a process on campus for determining penalties for breaking College rules, and that should be followed scrupulously, because it allows for context to play a role in a final judgment that is guided by principles of “fundamental fairness.” Given this system, the students (and other community members) in the room should accept responsibility for their actions. As one colleague wrote to me privately, Gandhi and King are remembered because they went to jail, not because they avoided punishment. If you participated in the event because you were morally compelled to do so, I admire your having the courage of your convictions. But you lose any moral high ground if you do not take responsibility for your decisions. I have tried to focus on several nuances that are missing from many discussions. Not all forms of protest were the same, and we shouldn’t lump their participants together in our minds. Not all protesters in the room had the same intent, and we shouldn’t conflate them. But I also think a clear judgment is required on other fronts. It was unequivocally wrong to shut down Charles Murray’s speech. And anyone involved in doing so should come forward and talk openly about the role they played on the day.
opinions 7
March 9, 2017 |
Why We Should Listen to the Protesters When I engage with fellow students, I start by asking questions. This past week I often asked, or some form of, “do you think that currently, and historically,
Reader Op-ed
Juan Andrade-Vera ’19 writes in about equality vs. equity.
there has existed a power imbalance between whites and POC’s/poor people, leading to an overvaluation of white voices and an undervaluation of POC/poor ones?” I am pleased to report that in 100 percent of conversations I had, the answer was “yes.” Great, now here is the point: equality and equity are not the same thing — not even close. This past week I’ve heard, “everyone has a right to their freedom of speech,” or “I don’t agree with him, but I want to hear what he has to say.” With that, I disagree. Allowing everyone to speak freely, especially on matters of race, creates that power imbalance my peers agreed existed, thus, not providing marginalized groups equal paths to success. In economics, the free market equilibrium we see on a supply and demand graph isn’t obtainable because not everyone has the income necessary to participate in said market. Same here. Equality means giving both, whites and marginalized people, the same access to the platform of speech, but equality won’t do anything to solve the ever-growing gap between the valuation of white
opinions over the valuation of marginalized ones. Instead, it will continue to fully value and in this case, normalize those opinions that have aided in the creation of institutionalized racism, making it difficult for the marginalized voices to be heard. Equity, on the other hand, is providing a platform, equal or unequal, for people to begin to have access to the same opportunities. It is giving the poor more income in order to participate in a market. Fighting inequity means we need to value the freedom of speech of marginalized people more than the freedom of speech of the oppressive voices such as Charles Murray until we see significant decreases in that gap. The mindset of allowing Charles Murray to speak for the sake of civil discourse and freedom of speech is dangerous as it ignores the fact that certain groups do not have an equally valued platform. As Travis Sanderson ’19 wrote, “opinions are not all created equal”. As it stands, Donald J. Trump is president; in the “most diverse congress in history” POC’s represent only 102 members despite non-Hispanic whites making up 60 percent of the US population. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2013, the average net worth of a black family was seven percent that of a white family. In a study sponsored by The Student Impact Project based on data from the US census and Bureau of Labor Statistics, they concluded a black college student has the same chance at employment as a white college dropout. In a study conducted by Anderson Cooper of CNN, a
white male with a criminal record is just “listen to the other side” before consideras and sometimes more likely to get a job ing the pain, hurt and self-doubt his presthan an equally qualified person of color ence was causing me. I beg all of you who with a clean record, and the chances are are privileged enough to not be frustrated twice as high when the white applicant with Murray’s presence to take a piece of your own advice has no crimiand listen. Listen nal record. “Equity is providing a to the other side, According to the New York platform, equal or unequal, and to the pain and suffering and Civil Liberfor people to begin to have try to empathize ties Union, in each year from access to the same opportu- with how Murray has made people 2009-2016, nities. It is giving the poor feel, and how the 80 percent protests that ocof the stops more income in order to curred were signs in NY’s stopparticipate in a market.” of solidarity, not and-frisk were signs of intellecdone to blacks tual intolerance. and Latinos; Emotional dis10 percent to whites. The list goes on and the ineq- tress is real; Charles Murray’s findings uity is there and will be there until we are not. On Thursday, I was proud of my fellow decide that the kind of rhetoric that has aided in the creation of these inequities protesters. For the first time at Middleis not tolerated any more. I’m not saying bury I didn’t feel alone, and I hope we that Charles Murray is the cause of every don’t let the violence enacted by a few single problem I highlighted; I’m saying non-Middlebury members mask what I that giving him the platform to spew out believe to have been the most beautiful the oppressive nature of his rhetoric can demonstration of rhetorical resilience. be used to validate someone else’s racist President of Middlebury Laurie L. Patviews, bringing us back to a pattern of op- ton wrote, “let’s make our conversations authentic and resilient. Resilience is the pression. This week, my frustration was not with ability to change and grow in response to Charles Murray. I have heard and dis- our environment.” Well, Thursday was missed people like him my entire life. My our response. We felt the pain and saw the frustration, sadness and disappointment danger in having Charles Murray, and we was with my peers, who were so quick to grew to make our response authentic and fight for his right to speak, and tell me resilient.
Toward Community Healing Over the past week, there has been a slew of media coverage of the protest
Reader Op-ed
Jeremy Stratton-Smith ’17 writes about the importance of empathy in the aftermath of last week’s protest. and surrounding events that occurred on Thursday, March 2nd in response to Charles Murray [CM] arriving on campus to give a lecture. There are many narratives circulating within campus networks as well as more broadly in the national media. I would like to add a perspective that so far has gone unaddressed by the majority of the coverage. I hope to allow people to think about protest and these specific events on campus by introducing the idea of rhetorical violence and emphasizing the importance of empathy in responding to (rhetorical) violence. Developing empathy as a practiced skill can help us move forward toward community healing. In her most recent email, President Patton said that colleges and universities should uphold the right to free speech, even “unpopular speech.” This is upsetting given the ongoing reality of systemic oppression, consisting of racist immigration policy targeting people from predominantly Muslim countries, attacks on the Affordable Care Act that has increased access to health care, increasingly militarized police forces and government sponsored destruction of native lands for private profit. These are facts of many people’s daily lives, both on and off campus and are openly supported in the public arena. In contrast to the idea put forth by President Patton that these ideas do not have platforms, these are spread in our daily news and are widely present in our government, especially under our new president. Creating a platform at Middlebury for similar kinds of racism and oppres-
sive ideologies impedes student’s abilities to be academically successful and generally whole people within our community because it welcomes in rhetorical violence and emotional distress. We as a community can act differently and find ways to make Middlebury a place of healing for the traumas that have been inflicted by institutional racism, but instead chose, and continue to choose, to deny these legacies of violence. This happens in many ways, one of which is the administrative recognition that student emotions are broader than anger and frustration. There is confusion, hurt, betrayal and a whole host of other emotions that are triggered by the kind of violent rhetoric that Charles Murray published. If we are going to heal, we need to find spaces where these emotions can be validated and accounted for, not just in a cordoned off protest area while dehumanizing rhetoric is spouted from a stage. In his recent post about the events that took place last Thursday, CM acknowledges that he has been discredited as a white supremacist, racist, sexist, eugenicist and white nationalist at Middlebury and by many prominent scholars. He does nothing to address the fact that these are not labels that are used arbitrarily. They are used to designate someone who perpetuates the ongoing trauma of racism, sexism and eugenics that shape all of our lives in different ways. None of us are free of the histories of violence that have shaped racism and sexism. Some are forced to bear that trauma in daily life in the small slights and large exclusions that people from marginalized backgrounds experience. Others of us are able to bear that trauma in a different way: the privilege to tell others that their pain is not real. When we think about community healing and a path forward, it is important that we take into account the ways that some members of our community, namely minority students, are told that their
experiences are not real. To do so would look like an affirmative statement by the administration, acknowledging the pain that rhetorical violence such as Murray’s can trigger, and providing avenues for healing that do not first require members of our community to be retraumatized by having their existence on campus put into question. Additionally, we need to do some work as students to think about the ways in which we have denied each other empathy, particularly for our peers who experience various forms of marginalization. Instead of denial, we can build tools of empathy by learning about our histories of violence and by practicing connecting with, listening to or simply validating the experiences of our peers when they are different from our own experiences. For all of the reasons above, I stand in support of the protestors from Thursday night as they expressed the communal pain that bringing a speaker like Charles Murray to campus creates. It is not rhetorically resilient for students of color to be forced to experience another example of white supremacy and racism on campus. I stand with students of color on our campus who participated in the protest and also those who did not. I have seen so many students from marginalized backgrounds exhibiting rhetorical resilience in their daily lives, while at the same time seeing that privileged students so often lack the empathy to honestly and openly engage with those they perceive to be different from them. Examining how we move forward can be a learning opportunity for those of us who do not experience oppression at Middlebury. Empathy is a skill, not an inherent quality, and I would ask that students with various kinds of privilege take some time to think about what empathy truly looks like, and what they might be able to learn about themselves and about other students on campus when they practice empathy.
To the Editors Dear Editors: One does not have to agree with Charles Murray’s ideas, or even to be interested in
Letter to the editor
Jacob M. Appel, M.D. J.D. Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine writes in about Murray. hearing him speak, to be deeply disturbed by the efforts of Middlebury College students to silence him. The advantage of living in a liberal democracy is that it affords numerous ways in which to challenge speakers with whom one disagrees: engaging those speakers in the marketplace of ideas, for example, or ignoring them entirely. In contrast, using a “heckler’s veto” to keep unpopular speakers from expressing their views not only stifles a particular speaker, but threatens to chill public discourse by discouraging others with controversial ideas from sharing them. Popular viewpoints do not require the protections provided by free speech rights; objectionable ones do. What is saddest about the spectacle surrounding Murray’s aborted speech is that many of his antagonists seem oblivious to the history of freedom of speech on American colleges campus. For much of the second half of the twentieth century, from the struggle against McCarthyites and loyalty oaths in the 1950s to the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, progressive students and faculty had to fight for the right to express themselves freely. It is hard to imagine that anyone fully aware of that legacy could wish to suppress others as they were once censored themselves. Allowing one controversial speaker, no matter how offensive to some, is unlikely to undermine our values or damage our society. Allowing no controversial speakers threatens us all. Sincerely, Jacob M. Appel MD JD Assistant Professor of Psychiatry Mount Sinai School of Medicine
8 opinions
|MArch 9, 2017
Questions For Those Who Shut Down Murray On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I would like to thank the pro-
READER Op-ed
David Stoll, professor of anthropology, questions the methods of last week’s protest. testers who prevented other people from hearing Charles Murray’s last week. The Trump administration is under siege by investigators and subpoenas. But you provided a welcome distraction. From Steve Bannon’s point of view, it couldn’t have turned out better. As for myself, I would really like to hear how different protest groups and options interacted up to the critical moment, around 4:45 p.m. on Thursday March 2, when a bunch of you decided not to walk out. If this group included newcomers pushing for a fight, and if this was still the Nixon administration, my next question would be, any chance they work for the FBI? Nowadays, the next question would be, any chance they work for an Alt-Right sting that persuaded you to do stupid things on camera? However this happened, the shut-itdowners acted out the inhumanity you say you oppose. Shut-it-downers preempted other strategies, that would respect a speaker’s right to be heard and make the protest look good, so that you could rhythmically stomp on free speech. The rest of us do not understand how, in the name of fighting hate-speech, you could hate-speech a speaker for two hours, then attack him and his escort as they tried to leave. But there’s a possible explanation for why you could do this with a clear conscience — is it because of how you think about race? The reason I ask is that you used race to justify your actions. Racial epithets played all too well in this liberal enclave. The Southern Poverty Law Center uses pull-quotes to accuse Charles Murray of racist pseudoscience and white nationalism, which you escalated by calling him a white supremacist. Now I’m hearing protesters defend their actions by saying it’s okay to punch Nazis. So Charles Murray is equivalent to a Nazi? Rhetorical escalation often backfires; if it sends you into a rage, your opponent will look more reasonable than you do. That’s certainly how Murray looked, standing patiently at the podium for half an hour, as the halo of free speech descended upon his brow. Calling Murray a white supremacist is like calling an abortionist a baby-killer.
Eighth- month abortions kill viable in- now? Is the difference Donald Trump in fants. But if you label abortion providers the White House? Certainly Trump’s use as baby-killers, you make a false general- of invective has inflamed the atmosphere, ization and dehumanize them. This is to be but how about our own local production of avoided if you want to avoid violence. In racial classification? Ever since the Nazis fed anthropology the case of Murray, his use of psychometrics to characterize broad populations has texts into their bonfires, my profession made him popular with Republicans who has argued that race is a cultural fiction feel that government handouts encourage with no more basis in genetics than being anti-social behavior among low-income French or Morrocan. There are no genes Americans. This puts him on a slippery that make the behavior of a black race difslope that can quickly lead to white su- fer from the behavior of a white race. Far premacy; it is possible that Murray enjoys more important in shaping behavior and being on this slippery slope; but neither outcomes are cultural programming and this nor white nationalism nor scientific social conditioning. And so as far as anracism are positions that he articulates. thropologists are concerned, race is little Murray is better defined as a bio-deter- more than a fetish or disguise for social minist or genetic fatalist, the limitations of class, ethnic or cultural differences. Our arguments won over many Ameriwhich are easy to explain. Those of you who race-baited Murray can liberals, but we were not as successful as a white supremacist put yourselves on with American conservatives. One conyour own slippery slope. You dehumanized servative rejoinder was … what? What do him, which made it easy to justify violence you mean there’s no such thing as race? against him, which is exactly what hap- As far as they can see, racial determinapened. You are also on a second slippery tion of behavior and outcomes is common slope, which I care about just as much be- sense. For evidence they still appeal to cause I do not want to see Donald Trump the IQ scores that Charles Murray and his win a second term in the White House. If co- author deployed in their 1994 book. A having conservative attitudes about pov- second conservative rejoinder also became erty is tantamount to racism, are you now popular … you’re saying race is fictional? going to label all the American voters who Wonderful! Now that we’ve outlawed discrimination, let’s treat everyone equally, think this way as racists? Cultural conservatives, whose attitudes so we can stop worrying about race. This second conservative rejoinder strike liberals as backward, include tens of millions of Democratic voters in the put liberals in an awkward position. Our only possible last election, response was … and they are “Cultural conservatives, wait, wait, wait! not all white. We can’t stop You can accuse whose attitudes strike libthinking about as many people erals as backward, include race because as you want racist attitudes of being ractens of millions of Demoare still strong. ists, but don’t cratic voters in the last Think about all expect them to election, and they are not the inherited vote for you in inequalities — the next elecall white .” structural raction. Of course, ism. And so the maybe you’ve same liberals stopped caring about elections. Look how badly the last who argued that race is a cultural fiction one turned out. If American elections are now also had to argue that race is the hidinextricably linked to white privilege, what den reality behind other forms of injustice. do they matter? If free speech is inextri- And so we learned to sing a complicated cably linked to white privilege, what does tune about race — or perhaps we sing two different tunes at the same time. Some of that matter either? About ten years ago, Charles Murray us (including myself) stress that any form came here to talk about the controversy of racial classification is a way of misleadover “The Bell Curve”. There was no cam- ing ourselves. Others of us (including paign to disinvite him and faculty mem- many who study race for a living) focus bers held a debrief the next day, to ensure instead on uncovering its insidious impact that any interested parties understood in many realms of life. At elite colleges like Middlebury, the the weak points of his argument. What has changed to make him so unacceptable challenge of making underrepresented
minorities feel welcome has prompted many initiatives organized around the concept of race. This includes hiring faculty who, quite understandably, interpret their mandate to include identifying hidden racial agendas in a prevailing white environment. Judging from what some of our students now publish regularly on the oped pages of The Campus, race saturates every issue at Middlebury College. But does it really? Long ago in 2001, in “Race Experts: How Racial Etiquette, Sensititivity Training and New Age Therapy Hijacked the Civil Rights Revolution,” Elisabeth LaschQuinn pointed out that race activists increasingly perceive “a world of endless slights. Here racist crimes and social faux pas are one and the same — all inspired by a monolithic, unabated white racial hatred. All whites must confess to their inherent racism, or they are, in the words of the recovery movement, ‘in denial.’” Yet if racial classification is a cultural fiction, if it is always a disguise for what’s really going on, can anti-racism scholars and activists fall into the trap of propagating it rather than undermining it? That they indeed can is argued by the sociologist Frank Furedi in “What’s Happened to the University?” Interestingly, campus episodes that Americans might attribute to our penchant for racial divides, lawsuits and psycho-babble are, according to Furedi, also very common in Canada, Australia and Britain. What’s shared by universities in each of these countries is the rapid spread of the “vulnerable groups” concept. This leads to what Furedi calls “the weaponization of emotions,” that is, the public display of fragility and anger as political bargaining chips. Becoming offended has become an irrefutable rationale for ending discussion, which makes it a claim to entitlement. What’s being demanded is administrative paternalism, Furedi concludes, which guarantees further cycles of infantilization. Could a spiral of dependency and anger explain how, on our campus, the demand for inclusion and safe space has become a demand for intolerance? Is this why our anti-racism activists last week were hurling racial invective? I heard racial insults, not just against Charles Murray, but against white women, white liberals and students of color whom shut-it-downers accused of racial disloyalty. Racialism is what I think I was hearing. Racialism is the insistence that one’s primary loyalty should be to one’s own racial group. If this is really what you think, white supremacists agree with you.
Shine a Light on Abhorrent Ideas, Don’t Shovel Them Under There’s little doubt that we are living in loud times. Many of us have an under-
Letter to the editor
Alumnus Peter Mandel ’79 is a Providence-based author of children’s books and a contributor to The Washington Post and The Boston Globe. standable wish to turn it down. Stop the sound, we think and maybe, somehow, we can find sanity in the ensuing silence. Still, it’s hard to describe my astonishment and that of other (mostly middleaged) alumni in hearing about the events surrounding the recent Charles Murray lecture, and in reading the March 1st letter to The Campus, “Charles Murray at Middlebury: Unacceptable and Unethical, Say Over 450 Alumni.”
Among the comments made by the letter’s young signers (I couldn’t find many, if any, that had graduated prior to 2000) is this one: “We, the undersigned, want to make clear to Old Chapel that the decision to bring Dr. Murray to campus is unacceptable and unethical. It is a decision that directly endangers members of the community and stains Middlebury’s reputation…” The letter says the following about Murray’s work, such as it is: “This is the same thinking that motivates eugenics and the genocidal white supremacist ideologies which are enjoying a popular resurgence under the new presidential administration. It is the same thinking that pervades many of the policies, structures and attitudes that perpetuate the ever-worsening inequalities of American society today.” Unless I’m misunderstanding, it looks as if, in the very same letter that questions the lecturer’s presence, you make an excellent case for why, in fact, his
visit is relevant and vital given current events. But a broader question for many of us of a certain age is this one: Why do you see “danger” in the clash of ideas, instead of opportunity? You’re informed. You’re sharp. Why not bring a bright light to bear on Murray and others like him? Why not welcome them into the midday glare that only a college campus full of educated and iconoclastic people can create? If you disagree with him, as I happen to, defend your turf. Do it so well and so strongly that the world will listen and remember your views. You may feel that you can bury abhorrent ideas by depriving them of “platform.” But, as you will probably learn, down in the darkness and silence bad ideas have a funny way of taking root. Those who espouse them don’t disappear. Life doesn’t work like that. And, as you may have realized in recent days, by trying to squelch thoughts you despise you award them far more currency
than an evening’s exchange. You’ll meet many fools and evil actors in your life ahead. And, whether in politics or science or the arts, many will hold an alarming degree of power. Listen to what they have to say. Laugh a little. Analyze. Marshal your arguments. Then strike. Make your rebuttal so rigorous, so ringing, so well-sourced, that you cannot help but win the day. The Middlebury course catalog from way back in my time — the late 1970s — devoted its very first page, a full page, to a poem of Robert Frost’s. I still have it here on my shelf. “Something we were withholding made us weak,” wrote Frost in The Gift Outright. “Until we found out that it was ourselves.” All I’m asking is, in a way, what Frost asked: to not withhold yourselves. To give the Middlebury community and the world around it your gift of full-on engagement. Your gift of listening. Your gift of scrutiny. Your gift of debate.
opinions 9
March 9, 2017 |
Rethinking the Consequences of Neutrality I wore a suit to protest Charles Murray. I now need to explain that choice, for the record, for anyone who thinks it’s a neutral
Reader Op-ed
Tyler McDowell ’19 writes in about staying neutral during last week’s protest. fashion statement, and more importantly for the friends whose trust I fractured with the decision. Background: AEI was hosting a dinner after the event during which people could engage in a formal conversation with our esteemed guest. I’m not a member of AEI, but asked them to attend that dinner so I could ask Murray pointed questions that made him uncomfortable and in that way celebrate a tiny victory over my own white supremacist ancestors. They OK’d my attendance, told me to wear a coat and tie and walk to the Abernethy room with them after the “talk” (presumably in step with Murray). I notified the Wonderbread email list and suggested they send me any questions they wanted asked. I decided to opt out of shutting him down, assured that I could defend my anger against Murray and simultaneously claim exemption from protesting because my energy was focused elsewhere. So here’s what wearing the suit communicated, given my abstention from protesting: 1. I support the College’s decision to bring Charles Murray here. 2. My own intellectual curiosity is more important than the lives of those targeted by discriminatory pseudoscience. 3. Regardless of this de facto endorsement, I get a free “woke” badge for feebly challenging a white supremacist. I ultimately decided to join in protesting anyway, at the last minute, because I
had friends involved and wanted to support them. Once there, I got loud and found an anger I hadn’t known before. It wasn’t just the mob mentality talking. It felt good to shout down white supremacy. But I still felt compelled to go to the dinner. In the chaotic aftermath of Murray’s flight to the Student Activities Office, I nonchalantly alternated between joining my friends in continued protest and talking with some acquaintances of mine from AEI, both to ask them if the dinner was still happening and to discuss their feelings about the protest. I assured them that I would still be civil when I attended the event, and chatted confidently and calmly while my friends kept chanting their voices hoarse. In short, I actively protested and supported Charles Murray at the same time, to nearly the maximum degree possible in either direction, considering the limitations of my student role. Side note: I also jumped the line to get in. Yeah, I’m that low. At this point it should be evident to anyone reading that this isn’t really about the suit. Full disclosure: part of my decision had to do with the fact that I look fly in a suit and will not pass up an opportunity to wear one. I encourage everyone to wear whatever clothing you like, whenever you like. But the fact that I chose to wear a suit on this particular day, in the face of intense emotional turmoil and naked disciplinary threats toward my fellow protesters from the school many of us call home, and pretended everything was cool with the students who brought Charles Murray here, says something bigger about me. Ultimately, my decisions meant: 4. The organizers’ efforts are less important than my own, because I get to disproportionately reap the benefits of our efforts without the associated psychological and physical stress. 5. My contributions to this event are important and I get free social capital. And friends from AEI.
6. Even in anti-racist activism — no, especially in anti-racist activism — white supremacy and its cultural manifestations must remain intact. The suit is more important than my friends’ humanity. Overall, it means I cannot be trusted. I am an enemy in this fight for justice, and a sinister one: I remain dormant in the ranks and then I waltz in, co-opt the movement and actively undermine its strength. I may be the most insidious agent of white supremacy this campus has ever seen. How’s that for a badge? For those who are still confused, or think I’m being too hard on myself, let me be clear about something: I wanted to attend that dinner. Deep down, I respect Charles Murray, regardless of his views. He’s an old, white, male intellectual, which is all I ever wanted to be growing up. It sounds silly, but I’m completely serious. That’s who got respect and reverence in my culture. White patriarchs with money run the country, and I was raised on promises that if I worked hard enough, I could do that too. And send my kids to college, and retire in Florida with a sizable pension. And golf. In my universe, oppression ended with the Civil Rights Movement, and poor people never existed except in movies and brief snapshots of unusually clean city streets, so it didn’t matter what kind of corporate greed was financing my parents. All I needed to do was study hard, and ignore my feelings. And smile. Oh, and holding differently colored hands helps you earn moral brownie points. I learned that from Elementary School textbooks. Academia is my drug, and Middlebury College is an intellectual opium den for young rich assholes and social media progressives. (These are not mutually exclusive categories; I am living proof of that). The size of our endowment doesn’t concern me; nor does the emotional state of those without my unearned wealth. I have very, very important things to learn here.
Because I need a degree. Because I need a well-paying job. Because… To my friends, and to anyone who helped organize or protest: last week, I betrayed you. I am ashamed and deeply sorry. I don’t expect you’ll forgive me. I just want you to know that I’ll work three times as hard to make sure your professors and other members of the “Middlebury College community” never unwittingly buy into white supremacy again. It’s too deeply woven into our minds to ignore anymore; it always has been. But you know that. Regardless of how this all plays out, I won’t look back on my life in 30 years and recall fondly that I spent most of my time peacefully studying, gleefully building social connections and consistently getting smashed. Sorry, Middlebury, I’m not sorry. Students with an upbringing at all similar to mine (you know who you are), I need you to hear this: you can’t have your cake and eat it too. I leave you with a quotation from the famous Apartheid-era archbishop Desmond Tutu: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” You may have heard this line before, but let it sink in for a second. “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” What we seem to forget is that country has never not been in a situation of injustice. It’s past time that we stop pretending that neutrality is possible. That goes for all of us, especially President Patton. Let her and your professors know. (I encourage anyone, and I mean anyone, who is curious or angry about any of this to talk about it. I am here for that if you need it. If you specifically want to yell at me for being the worst ally in history, I am also receptive to that idea. I hope this helps you think through your own life, if even a little bit. Please reach out, whenever, at tmcdowell@middlebury.edu.)
Villification from the Protesters To President The controversy centered on Mr. Murray’s talk last week taught me how exaggerated some protesters’ rhetoric
Reader Op-ed
Wentao Zhai ’17 considers relativity’s role in last week’s protest. can become when used to vilify their ideological opponents. In my opinion, part of their rhetoric is not only moralistic and unconstructive, but also inaccurate and hypocritical. Consider how the label “pseudo-science” is abused. I am not in the position to assess the rigor of Mr. Murray’s theory, but I am sure that there is considerable distance between the grotesque caricatures of Mr. Murray’s arguments and the much more cautious and agnostic arguments he actually put forward. As our Political Science department points out in an open letter, Mr. Murray is not a “charlatan.” Some of his claims, such as the inheritability of intelligence have in fact been confirmed by the peerreviewed “Mainstream Science on Intelligence” on the Wall Street Journal. Furthermore, if those who accuse Mr. Murray’s theory as pseudo-science are consistent in their belief in science, they should renounce equally spurious theories such as, say, alternative medicine. The fact that they distinguish one from the other indicates that their opinion is based on moral judgment, rather than scientific merit. It gives me even more qualms to read statements like “Murray puts human dignity at risk”. The concept of “human dignity” belongs in the realm of philosophy and/or faith, which can be neither proven nor refuted by any statistical analysis. As far as I understand, Mr. Murray’s thesis in The Bell Curve only
posits that (a) intelligence, in the crude and flawed way we understand it, may be genetic and may correlate with race; and that (b) intelligence may be an effective indicator of socio-economic divide. If we overlook the many asterisks and qualifications involved, and push this statement to its logical extreme, as so many scientific discoveries have been wrongfully presented in popular media, we get that “poor people are dumb.” Yet even when put in this grossly simplistic language, I fail to see how “human dignity” is compromised — unless we are to believe that dumb or poor people are somehow sub-human in dignity. I do not believe Mr. Murray’s protesters hold such an outrageous idea. Rather, I believe they have been deliberately lax in their phrasing in order to stir the emotions of their audience. Even before some protesters physically injured Professor Stanger, this exaggerated rhetoric has produced immediate, tangible harm. Granted, being an influential writer, Mr. Murray does not strictly need the platform at Middlebury in order to make his opinions known to the public. But what about the rest of the student body? What about students (of which I am sure there is a great number) interested in listening to Mr. Murray just for the topic of the talk, namely class divide in white America? Their right to engage in meaningful conversation, even if in disagreement, has been forcefully sacrificed on the altar of a progressive orthodoxy. This is neither just nor expedient: just as name-calling has not persuaded Trump supporters in the general election, the strategies of protesters on Thursday will not garner much sympathy from students who are undecided on this matter. As if this is not enough, they have also used social media to target students of color who spoke out in defense of Mr.
Murray’s right to free speech, suggesting that these students have colluded with white supremacists. Admittedly, Mr. Murray is at an advantage in terms of institutional power (but still, he is far from the policy maker at our or any other college); the same cannot be said about students who wished to hear him speak. It is ironic how some protesters’ ad hominem attacks have been more malign and hurtful than Mr. Murray’s dubious claims. Such is the extent of the fanaticism of the Left. Such is the kind of intellectual witch-hunt they are willing to initiate in order to protect the purity of their doctrine. The fierce opponents of Mr. Murray must confess that censorship is good and obligatory when certain moral imperatives are at risk. They must admit that they would purge a view because they value science not as much as they value the outcome of their crusade. They are not friends of the Enlightenment thinkers, who were willing to challenge social taboo on morality in order to promote open debate. On the contrary, they are akin to religious fundamentalists who would defend at all costs an idea that they believe to be capital Truth. At most, they see liberty as a means rather than a principle. However, the moment liberty is suspended for an ulterior end, it ceases to be liberty. Liberty as anything other than a principle is hardly liberty at all. Sure, I respect all sorts of moral crusaders for their devotion to a noble cause. However, I would be skeptical of their hypocrisy if they start to uphold the banner once pioneered by the likes of John Stuart Mill, and denounce historical and contemporary tyrannies, as if they are truly concerned with ideas like tolerance or freedom.
Patton
Dear President Patton: I question the decision to offer the imprimatur of Middlebury’s forum to Mr. Mur-
LETTER TO THE EDITOR Alumnus Peter Knobler ’68 writes to President Patton about the administrative response to last week’s protest.
ray. The College can do better than lend its stature to a man of such racism and bigotry. It can encourage intellectual diversity by offering courses and events which include among their teachings, and in context, his brand of pseudoscience — but given the College’s mandate to pursue honor and intellectual rigor, I believe the decision to bring him on campus was a poor one. I also take exception to your use of the phrase “outside agitators.” As you of course know, that phrase gained its greatest currency during the civil rights protests of the 1960s, when it was used by many racist Southern apologists, notably Alabama’s Governor George Wallace, to deflect responsibility for their refusal to address the grievances of their citizens. One is not limited in one’s right to protest by geography. As one of Middlebury’s own outside agitators who left campus in 1965 to march into Montgomery with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I find your decision to use that phrase particularly offensive. The disruption that occurred concerning Mr. Murray and Professor Stanger could have been avoided altogether by a more considered decision not to invite him to speak on campus in the first place. There are many available speakers across the political, economic and social spectrum. Middlebury is under no obligation, intellectual or otherwise, to offer its embrace to white supremacists and bigots. Sincerely, Peter Knobler ’68
CARTOONS
EMILY COX
Millie von platen
WIn Homer
cartoons 11
march 9, 2017
Uriel Ulloa
Kaitlynd Collins
Nolan Ellsworth
12 features
| March 9, 2017
features 13
March 9, 2017 |
Middlebury and Murray: Resistance & Reflections
Murray Protests Gain National Traction
What are people saying? Wordclouds developed from eight different News and Opinions pieces from national media. Created using tagcrowd.com.
liver a guest lecture. In his piece, Murray wrote, “Academia is already largely sequestered in an ideological bubble, but at least it’s translucent. That bubble will become opaque.” College faculty utilized several of these platforms to voice their own commentary on the matter, as well. Professor of English and Creative Writing Jay Parini and Assistant Professor of Political Science Keegan Callanan wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, outlining the core principles they deem “unassailable in the context of higher education within a free society.” These principles were endorsed by over 60 faculty members at the College. Included in this core principles list are the following statements: “Exposure to controversial points of view does not constitute violence … Students have the right to challenge and even to protest non-disruptively the views of their professors
and guest speakers … The purpose of college is not to make faculty or students comfortable in their opinions and prejudices.” Although a majority of news outlets openly denounced the events, not every publication ran condemnatory views on the matter. Dean Spade of The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, “It is not fair to portray student activists as troublemakers damaging the institution’s reputation. First, it is not the students’ responsibility to portray their colleges as wonderful destinations if they are not experiencing them that way. Second, the disruptive activists are often the same students who are leading student organizations, mentoring new students, pipelining high schoolers, and otherwise devoting themselves to making the institution more accessible and survivable for marginalized people.”
OPINIONS
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 The New York Times featured the incident over several articles, including an editorial published on the front page of its website, titled, “Smothering Speech at Middlebury.” The editorial board criticized protesters’ refusal to lend Murray a platform to speak, labeling the event “a violent free-speech debacle.” The board wrote, “Mr. Murray is an academic with an argument to make about class in America … and maybe it is flawed. But Middlebury students had no chance to challenge him on any of his views. Thought and persuasion, questions and answers, were eclipsed by intimidation.” Fox News reproduced an essay written by Murray following the events. His reflection originally appeared on the blog of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the public policy think tank whose branch at the College invited Murray to de-
NEWS
assemble their response with signs, emails and brochures. The Mid- their faces covered and some of whom were non-students. As Stanger CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Parts of his methodology have been challenged, especially his use dlebury AEI and the College Republicans clubs, which have partly and Murray attempted to get inside a car, protesters allegedly placed of certain data to arrive at more general conclusions on the nature shared leadership, called for members to arrive at the event as early themselves in their path. Murray was not physically harmed in the ensuing confrontation, versus nurture debate. “The Bell Curve” and some of Murray’s later as possible. “This has become, for Alexander [Khan] and I, a battle for free but Stanger suffered from a neck injury following a physical altercacomments have resulted in his classification as a “white nationalist” by many, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit le- speech and liberalism. We do not believe that Dr. Murray is what oth- tion that transpired after she attempted to shield Murray and usher him to their vehicle. Stanger experienced whiplash that evening. On gal advocacy organization “dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry,” as ers claim him to be,” Hoxie wrote in an email. More than an hour before the talk was penned to begin at 4:30 the following Sunday, she was diagnosed with a concussion. She was stated on their website. p.m., students, faculty and community members began lining up out- taken to Porter Hospital on both days. An Invitation to Speak Beyond this series of events, the nature of the confrontation and its Murray has spoken at Middlebury before, once in April 2007, on side of McCullough Student Center. The earliest arrivals were predominantly protesters. Many held many facets remain disputed. An article on the student-run blog Mid“The Bell Curve.” The event sparked controversy but not to the same extent of last Thursday; it was not covered in The Campus. Last semes- signs with declarations like “Respect Resistance,” “F*ck White Su- dbeat, unaffiliated with the administration, shared the perspective of ter, the College chapter of AEI gathered to discuss an invitation for an premacy,” “F*ck Eugenics,” and “Charles Murray Is Fake News.” On anonymous students who claimed to be present at the conflict. Other expert from the organization to deliver a guest lecture. They made a the lawn nearby, non-student activists gathered, and the flag of the recollections have provided contradictory details and viewpoints, and list of academics associated with AEI and submitted it to the national Anti-Fascist movement flapped in the breeze. These activists, and any- the questions of what happened, who initiated what and who exactly is one else not part of the college community, were not allowed inside at fault have ignited widespread and contentious debate, both on and organization. off campus. AEI told the College chapter that Murray had accepted the invita- the event. Following the day’s events, two seperate investigations are being Finally, the doors to the lecture opened and students went inside tion partly because of his close relationship with the College: he is the parent of a Middlebury graduate. The College chapter was provided — but, due to capacity issues, only a fraction of those outside got seats. launched; one an independent investigation by the College, the other Vice President for Communications and Chief Marketing Officer an investigation into the confrontation that took place outside of Mcfunding by the national organization to host Murray and facilitate the talk. “Our goal … was to create a discussion on campus. We thought Bill Burger took the stage and stated the Middlebury guidelines on Cullough to be done by the Middlebury Police Department, said Presithat his work on “Coming Apart” was really prescient,” AEI Vice Presi- guest speakers, protests and demonstrations. His short speech incited dent Patton in an email to the community last Monday. several responses from the protesters. “There is hard work ahead for all of us,” Patton wrote in her email. dent Alexander Khan ’17 said. “Middlebury College does not allow disruptive behavior at a com- “Learning to be accountable to one another, and learning to stand in In the AEI chapter on campus, the executive board — which made the final decision to bring Murray to campus — disagreed on the best munity event or on campus. Disruptions may include purposefully community with one another.” format for his planned lecture. Violet Low-Beinart ’19, a member of blocking the view of others,” Burger said. To this, an unidentified stu- Community Response By Friday, March 3, Murray had departed, and students, faculty the board and a democrat, floated the possibility of treating this event dent in the crowd said, “And inviting white supremacists.” and staff awoke to a world suddenly focused on Burger continued, “Banners differently than other academic lectures and offered the idea of a mod“I think that it’s so necessary their college. The first reports of Stanger’s injury or items that block the audience’s erated panel format. “We are a diverse group who hold a range of opinions and political view,” and the crowd immediately and important that we try to appeared in VTDigger and the Addison Independent, but national news outlets soon began runideologies,” she said of the board’s final decision not to pursue a panel raised their signs high in response. “You’re going to love this next change the culture on campus ning the story. format. Within the College community, many have Addressing the internal debate, Phil Hoxie ’17.5, president and part,” he said. “Noise or action that and create one of intellectual di- been asking, “What do these events mean?” In an chair of the AEI executive council, determined that disagreement disrupts the ability of the audience email sent on Friday, Patton spoke of the event as among board members was due to expectations of social ramifica- to hear.” At that, the audience burst versity.” a disappointing display of a deep divide in College tions. “I think the concerns were more of how this would be perceived into cheers, drowning out the rest culture. [by] other people and not wanting to deal with what we’re dealing with of Burger’s sentence. Alexander Khan’17 Crowd outbursts and jeers “Last night we failed to live up to our core right now,” he said. Vice-President and member of the Middlebury AEI executive council values,” she said in the message. “But I remain continued through the opening Organizing Resistance hopeful.” By evening on Feb. 24, several months after the AEI had scheduled speeches of Khan and Middlebury “This was the saddest day of my life,” Stanger Murray’s talk, the decision to bring Murray to the College had esca- AEI Executive Council Member lated into a campus-wide controversy. Over the weekend of Feb. 25- Ivan Valladares ’17. When President Patton took stage, she was met posted publicly to Facebook on Saturday, March 4. “We have got to do 26, Middlebury Resistance, College Democrats, Wonderbread, other with a combination of boos and applause. However, after delivering better by those who feel and are marginalized ... We must all realize the precious inheritance we have as fellow Americans and defend the clubs and ad-hoc organizations were already beginning substantive her remarks, the crowd responded only with applause. “We are an intellectual community, and part of a job of an intel- Constitution against all its enemies, both foreign and domestic.” organization efforts. Some of the first goals that emerged were to get For Khan and Hoxie, the disruptions and confrontation took them the Department of Political Science to rescind its co-sponsorship in the lectual community is to argue. If there ever was a time for Americans by surprise and seemed to confirm their fears about the state of freeevent, to urge President of Middlebury Laurie L. Patton to not appear to take on arguments that affect us, it is now,” she said. Murray finally walked on stage, and the crowd erupted into boos dom of speech on campus. at the event and to pressure either the College or AEI to retract the and chants. “This is going to be a real anti-climax,” he said. At that “If we’re not willing to listen to each other and we’re not willing to invitation altogether. On Monday, Feb. 27. Professors and students together led organiz- point, protesters stood up, turned around and together began reciting listen to what we have to say because we feel that that person might say something that we find offensive, or even hateful, we’re going to be in ing efforts, which soon divided into two different groups: those who a pre-written speech. “This is not respectful discourse or a debate about free speech,” real trouble,” Hoxie said. “I firmly believe that freedom is one generawished to carry out non-disruptive protests, and those who wished to they said. “These are not ideas that can be fairly debated. It is not ‘rep- tion away from being extinct. We’re going to vote it away.” shut down the event and prevent Murray from speaking. Many students who participated in the protests expressed disapArianna Reyes ’18 and Sami Lamont ’17 helped solidify and struc- resentative’ of the other side to give a platform to such dangerous idepointment at the violent conclusion to events, but they also felt some ture the protests. Both students saw the event as an opportunity to ologies. There is not a potential for an equal exchange of ideas.” The speech then transformed into chants. These included: “Who satisfaction with the effectiveness of the protests within Wilson Hall take action and support values they care deeply about. “I was thinking a lot about what’s been going on in the world and how I’ve been really is the enemy? White supremacy!” “Your message is hatred; we cannot and a determination to continue pushing these issues in the future. tolerate it!” “Charles Murray, go away; Middlebury says ‘no way!’” “[The initial protest] was incredibly successful because we coordipassive before right now in terms of actually organizing,” Reyes said. After ten minutes, Burger walked on stage again to announce that nated all of these people to turn around and that was a really powerful Lamont explained that she took a de facto leadership role in the opposition when she realized the opposition energy could use additional the format of the talk would transform into an interactive, livestreamed statement,” Reyes said. “It was successful because we did get [Murray discussion between Murray and moderator Allison Stanger, the Rus- and Professor Stanger] to leave Wilson Hall.” direction and structure. Lamont and Reyes do not view the division as one that pits pro“It was seeing all the ideas floating around just on Facebook and sell J. Leng ’60 professor of international politics and economics. The then realizing that we needed a place to consolidate that if anything two moved to an undisclosed location to film their conversation, a ponents of free speech against those who are willing to restrict free speech in pursuit of some other goal. was going to happen,” she said, commenting on her decision to get backup prepared in advance. Over the course of Murray and Stanger’s discussion that lasted “That’s one thing [President Patton] mentions a lot in [her stateinvolved. However, both Reyes and Lamont quickly recognized that the pro- more than an hour (now available on the Middlebury News Room) ments on] rhetorical resilience — confidence in debate — and I think test efforts could never be completely uniform. Reyes focused on the some members in the crowd dispersed. But many protesters remained one big reason why we were not into talking to Murray is that he’s group of students who wished to disrupt the speech, while Lamont in- in the auditorium and continued chanting. The protests continued shown that he’s pretty confident in his ideas and he’s not really about outside, as well, where some spoke into mega- talking to them and engaging and reconsidering,” Lamont said. stead helped run meetings that brain“This is different because we phones and sounded off sirens and drums. For other students, however, the disruption of Murray’s talk and stormed non-disruptive methods of had discovered the location of the live subsequent violence brought to the forefront a significant problem enresistance. are uncomfortable. Because I am They stream and made noise outside its window — grained in the community. “I was always definitely supportive “The manner in which he was shut down lacked civility and, in my of a diversity of tactics,” Reyes said. “I uncomfortable. Because we are in the video, their efforts can be heard clearly. Back inside the auditorium, as administra- opinion, did not respect the rights of those students (many who diswasn’t trying to go against anyone and asked to be with you and think tors attempted to get the livestream projected agree with him ideologically) but who, nevertheless, wanted to hear what they were doing.” On Wednesday, March 1, the politi- about what our responsibilities onto the screen, tensions between protesters him speak and/or engage with him at an intellectual level,” said Abdi and attendees escalated. Students yelled at Mohamed ’18.5. cal science department held a commuAs of this writing, it is unclear exactly how the community will renity meeting for the purpose of pro- are when we navigate between each other across Wilson Hall. “Respect free viding a forum to ask questions about the free exchange of ideas and speech!” was shouted to some protesters. One spond to these events. As Johnson said, “I think one of the more powprotester yelled, “F*ck white supremacy!” to erful things we can say in this moment is ‘I don’t know’. I don’t really the department’s cosponsorship and to discuss the event more generally. our commitment to the commu- a group of students attempting to view the know what’s next.” livestream. In response, one of those viewers Many see the events as having unleashed a deep and possibly irIn the course of the meeting, political nity.” shouted, “F*ck censorship!” The altercation reconcilable gulf between students, while others see them as a way to science faculty also revealed internal Sarah Stroup ended when the protester yelled back, “F*ck come together, hash out differences and determine a path to progress. divisions. Department Chair and AsAssociate PProfessor of Political Science free speech!” According to Lamont, preperations are already being made for meetsociate Professor of Political Science Protesters and attendees alike dispersed as ings and discussions in the coming weeks. Bertram Johnson had previously sent time went on, but a sizeable group of around Khan viewed the events as an opportunity for the community to an email around that provided insight 20 students continued to chant over Murray’s talk. Many students left reassess its values and culture, and to push back against attempts to into the department’s own debate over the sponsorship. Associate Professor of Political Science Sarah Stroup offered an to view the speech elsewhere. Outside the McCullough Student Center, stifle opposing views. “I don’t want the moral of this story to be that Middlebury couldn’t handle a viewpoint that wasn’t consistent with opening statement that presented her own mixed feelings about the a majority of protesters had left by 6 p.m. About 15 protesters remained standing one entrance to Mc- their own. I think that it’s so necessary and important that we try to lecture, as well as her thoughts on what made this event so unusual for Cullough, still yelling at the window of the room in which Murray was change the culture on campus and create one of intellectual diversity.” the department. In an email sent out on Monday, March 6, President Patton rein“I think that it’s a trope in higher education that we are supposed to speaking. Among this group were non-student activists. Some protestmake [students] uncomfortable, and I will be honest that most of the ers wore face masks to conceal their identities. Two masked protesters forced this call for community building and discussion. “This week, we will mark the beginning of opportunities for retime, we do not join you as faculty in that endeavor,” she said. “This is unfurled a banner that read, “Choke on your silver spoon, you f*cking flection and engagement,” she said. “We have much to discuss — our different because we are uncomfortable. Because I am uncomfortable. Nazi.” As Murray’s talk neared its end, the protesters dispersed around differences on the question of free speech and on the role of protest Because we are asked to be with you and think about what our responbeing two of the most pressing examples. In addition, I am extendsibilities are when we navigate between the free exchange of ideas and McCullough to cover all the entrances, waiting for his exit. The events that followed caused the protests to draw attention ing an invitation to everyone to submit community-building ideas for our commitment to the community.” Over an hour, the political science department offered different from national news outlets, but the details and nuances of that day consideration.” “I’m committed to working on whatever’s next, and I’m grateful viewpoints of the controversy, from steadfast defenses of the decision remain uncertain. What is agreed upon by Burger’s statements to the to invite him to campus, to expressions of revulsion at Murray’s views media, Stanger’s public Facebook post, Murray’s statement on AEI’s for those people on various sides of this who have reached out to have website and President Patton’s statements to the community is the fol- conversations,” Johnson said. “That’s how we’re going to proceed — and to encouragements of protest. lowing claim: When Murray exited the building, escorted by Burger through having conversations.” A Contentious Afternoon On March 2, the day of the event, organizers made final efforts to and Stanger, the group was approached by protesters, several with Additional reporting done by Christian Jambora and Will DiGravio.
SGA Bill Proposed in Light of Campus Response to Charles Murray CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Senator Rae Aaron ’19.5, Community Council Co-Chair Travis Sanderson ’19 and SGA Chief of Staff Jin Sohn ’18. Members of the College’s American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Club, the group that invited Murray to campus, attended the March 5 SGA meeting and have expressed opposition to the bill. “I think that applying community standards to speakers in the form of an appeals board is a truly dangerous concept, it’s a censorship board,” said AEI President and Executive Council Chair Phil Hoxie ’17.5 It is the fear of some, including Huxie and AEI Vice
President and Executive Council Member Alexander Khan ’17, that an appeals process may prevent certain speakers who do not hold prevailing political beliefs from speaking on campus. “To have any type of mechanism whereby students who disagree with a speaker have the ability to block that speaker from coming to campus is basically an institutional mechanism for shutting down discourse,” Khan said. “Subjecting speakers brought either by a department or by a club to a set of community standards can easily become a requirement that speakers follow or believe in a certain political ideology that is dictated by people in charge of those community standards.”
SGA President Karina Toy ’17 emphasised that an appeals committee would only provide students with a platform to express their grievances over the invitation of a certain speaker. “[This is] not an appeals process to say someone can’t bring a speaker on campus but to give students a process of how they express their disagreement with a speaker or an event happening on campus,” she said “That’s all very much up in the air.” A final version of the bill will be discussed, and potentially voted on, at the March 12 meeting of the SGA. Additional reporting by Ellie Reinhardt (Editor-inChief).
Designed by Cordelia Prouvost, photos by Lucy Pappas (upper left) and Michael O’Hara
14 features
| March 9, 2017
Students Attend J Street Conference in D.C. By James Finn Contributing Writer
According to Alter, she attended panels that focused on the social side of the conflict. Members of the College’s chapter of “There were many speakers there, and J Street U attended the annual J Street since there were usually multiple panels conference in Washington, D.C. the at once, I was only able to hear from a weekend of February 24-26. J Street is a small portion,” Alter said. “My favornational lobbying organization that pro- ite small panel was one called Combatmotes discussion and political policies to ing Islamophobia, which discussed the work towards a two-state solution to the causes of Islamophobia in the U.S. and Israeli-Palestinian conflict. the importance of Jews and Muslims J Street U is the university student supporting each other.” branch of J Many speakers shared Street and views on ways that U.S. works to pro“It was interesting to residents can engage in vide college productive dialogue about students with see how J Street reached the conflict among sepaplatforms on rate groups with different their cam- out to marginalized groups views. puses for within the United States to “It was interesting to see discussion how J Street reached out to and activism hold a dialogue about how marginalized groups within surrounding sarah asch the United States to hold the conflict. the Jewish community can a dialogue about how the Eight students from Middlebury College’s chapter of J Street U attended the J Street J Street U interact with them in posi- Jewish community can in- conference in Washington, D.C. the weekend of March 24-26. brought stuteract with them in positive dents from tive ways. ” tions and to the security of the State of ways,” Kelley said. “Discus- estinian conflict.” across the Rabbi Ira Schiffer, an associate chap- Israel,” Schiffer said. sions like those seem to be Robbie Kelley ‘19.5 United States Students said that, overall, the conthe main way that J Street lain and Hillel advisor to the college who to D.C. to Conference Participant U goes about its activism, works with the Middlebury J Street U ference provided a valuable opportunity hear speakers and is something that I chapter, has found that the club creates to engage with an array of perspectives ranging from surrounding the conflict and to gain a an inclusive space for discussion. strongly agree with.” Bernie Sand“In my experience, J Street U at Mid- insight into the magnitude of the proJ Street U has been ers to officials an active organization at dlebury has been a responsible and rea- cess of beginning to resolve tensions in from the Obama administration to mem- Middlebury in the past but didn’t have a sonable place for students to engage with Israel-Palestine. bers of Israel’s Knesset, or parliament, presence on campus when Alter arrived each other, and with faculty and staff, “I learned so much at the conference, speak on a range of issues pertaining to last year, so she decided to restart it. She from the perspective of wanting to see a but left with more questions than I startthe conflict. saw the presence of a chapter at Middle- resolution of the conflict that would be ed with,” Alter said. “I was glad to learn “Over 1000 students from J Street U bury as an opportunity for students to fair to both Palestinian national aspira- what different leaders are doing in the attended,” said Celia Alter ’19.5, presi- engage in discourse and current political climates and it helped dent of the Middlebury J Street U chap- activism about an issue solidify my own political beliefs.” ter. “It was a gathering of thousands of that holds precedence for Kelley agreed. “My overall takeaways “In my experience, J Street U at pro-peace Americans who want a two- many Americans at this include the fact that there is an immense state solution in Israel.” time. Middlebury has been a responsible and uphill battle ahead of us, even to keep a Speakers shared an array of different two-state solution viable over the next “The Israeli-Palestinian perspectives surrounding the Israeli- conflict is a major current reasonable place for students to engage couple of years,” Kelley said. Palestinian conflict, ranging from policy issue, and I believe there Schiffer expressed his excitement that opinions to personal experiences and should be a space on camwith each other, and with faculty and students were able to attend the conviews, students said. ference and bring new ideas back with pus to discuss it,” Alter staff, from the perspective of wanting “The breakdown of speakers was said. “Although we are afthem. “Being at a small, liberal arts colmainly Jewish, including some members filiated with the national to see a resolution of the conflict that lege in rural Vermont, conferences such of the Knesset, as well as activists and organizations J Street and as J Street’s national conference are impolicy makers from other walks of life,” J Street U, students with would be fair to both Palestinian naportant opportunities for our students,” Robbie Kelley ’19.5 said. Kelly was an- any perspectives and beSchiffer said. “[These are opportunities] tional aspirations and to the security of other student who attended the confer- liefs are welcome to join to meet other students from across the ence. “My favorite speakers were those our discussions. I also the State of Israel. ” country to share and learn first-hand from the Obama administration, because want to give Middlebury how issues are perceived and addressed Rabbi Ira schiffer I’m more interested in the policy side of students a place for activat different institutes of higher learning things and those were the issues that ism around the Israeli-PalAssociate Chaplain and in non-academic settings.” they spoke to.”
Market Mu$ing$: Snapchat Implements IPO By Jackson Adams Columnist This past week, newspapers were awash with articles about the IPO of Snapchat’s parent company, Snap Inc., which makes now the perfect time to explain the juicy, enigmatic and colossally overhyped concept of an Initial Public Offering. If you pay zero attention to financial news, you’ll just have to take my word for it: the concept of “taking a company public” is downright fetishized. Here’s a quick primer on why. At its most basic, an IPO is just a way for a company to raise capital (the money needed to run or expand a business). To raise capital, companies have a few options. They can take out a loan from a bank, sell bonds (which is a bit like taking out a bunch of tiny loans from thousands of people) or they can sell equity. Equity is an ownership stake in the company entitling the owner of said stake to a slice of the company and its future profits. Usually equity owners are also entitled to voting rights giving them a say in how a company is managed. Equity, unlike debt (loans or bonds), does not necessarily obligate a company to pay interest at a regular interval and never involves paying back the principal (the initial sum invested). This is great if your young company is not yet profitable and thus the likelihood that you can make regular interest payments is low. Equity comes in two forms: public and private. Private equity is what most young companies that want to sell equity will use. Young firms tend to be smaller and riskier, and private equity positions are less liquid than public equity (i.e. there are restrictions
on when the stakes can be bought or sold and to whom, and the stakes are larger). The benefit is that private equity investors get in on the ground floor and are generally allowed a much greater say in how a firm grows and what direction it takes. When a company “goes public” they start to sell equity in the public stock markets (stock = equity). This means their share price (and, by proxy, the value of their firm) is in the hands of public investors. Everyone from your grandmother to a multi-billiondollar pension fund can buy and sell pieces as they wish. This is risky. Public markets can be fickle, and if the public markets have negative sentiment towards the company they will push the share price down, making the company less valuable. This has ramifications for future financing because poor stock performance (a falling share price) implies the company is not financially strong or worth financing. Theoretically, the share price can also fall to zero implying the company is worthless. Dropping share prices also mean the ownership stakes of the founders and private investors lose value. But the benefits to going public often outweigh the risks. One benefit is that the public equity markets are massive. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) where SNAP started trading has $20 trillion worth of capital already invested, and people all over the world can invest if they so choose. The other benefit is that going public makes equity positions “liquid.” Essentially, the founders as well as private equity investors can now sell shares to cash in. These “liquidity events” have the power to mint new millionaires and even billionaires over-
night, and if the stock price rises rapidly on public excitement, all the better. Yet in the world of modern finance, there is plenty of private capital to go around. Uber is worth north of $60 billion and its CEO says they are not planning to go public any time soon, Jackson National Life Insurance Company has over $200 billion in assets but it has never touched the stock market. Plus, there are “secondary offerings” all the time. Companies frequently sell more shares in the public markets after they had already gone public, and yet nobody gets all hot and bothered about those. So why the excitement around initial public offerings? IPOs matter so much because tapping the public markets for the first time is a rite of passage. Even if an initial public offering is nothing special, it feels special. People rhapsodize about how companies that have IPOed have made it to the big leagues. Somehow the process imparts a certain je ne sais quoi on a company. And it’s exciting! Sure, it’s usually a bit awkward, painful, messy even, but the potential payoff is big. SNAP shares were up 44 percent by the end of the first day of trading and another 10 percent by the end of trading last Friday. Sentiment seems to suggest that Snap Inc. is the next great social media winner with predictions that it might be the next Facebook. Facebook shares are up 260 percent or so since the IPO in 2012 valuing it at just under $400 billion. Snap Inc.’s $30-ish billion pales in comparison, but it’s nothing to sneeze at. Snapchat’s ability to target young consumers between the ages of 13 to 25 makes it invaluable to advertisers. The problem is that SNAP isn’t profit-
able and has no clear plan to start generating a profit any time soon. “Monetize” isn’t just a buzzword, it’s an imperative command for tech businesses that hope to stay alive. Sheer optimism cannot sustain a stock forever. Daily active user growth for Snapchat slowed substantially towards the end of last year and if growth plateaus, optimism – and with it, share price – is sure to plummet. SNAP shares also come with no voting rights which makes them less attractive long-term to investors. If large investors get no say in the business decisions, there is less incentive for them to invest in the first place, and less incentive to hold shares when the company is doing poorly in the hopes that they can orchestrate a turnaround by influencing company policy. Evan Spiegel is judge, jury and executioner. Given the headwinds, the majority of analysts covering the stock as of last Friday say it’s a “sell.” They have an average price target about 1 percent below the IPO price of $17 which also means a hefty 50 percent drop from the Friday close. All in all, SNAP is welcome to pop the champagne. If SNAP can continue to perform, then maybe, just maybe, its sky-high valuation is justified. Here’s hoping Snap Inc. really is something more than just the company that once created a sexting app. But only time will tell if Snap Inc.’s valuation will prove to be just as ephemeral as the eponymous messages themselves. Disclosure: This article does not constitute any sort of financial or investment advice and should not be construed as such.
March 9, 2017
RAJ Conference to Explore Cultures of Language and Identity
features15
By Ellie Anderson Contributing Writer The Rohatyn Center for Global Affairs will be hosting its fifth Annual International Conference on March 9-11. The event, titled “From Scroll to Scrolling: Shifting Cultures of Language and Identity,” will take place in the Robert A. Jones (RAJ) Conference Room through a series of six individual 90 minute sessions beginning at 4:30pm on Thursday. 17 speakers are scheduled to present, traveling from universities as nearby as Middlebury itself and as far as the University of Wroclaw in Poland. Director of the Rohatyn Center Tamar Mayer is the lead organizer for the conference. Though each session differs, overall attendance has been high for all the years Rohatyn Center for Global Affairs she has coordinated the conference, she The fifth Annual International Conference, hosted by the Rohatyn Center for Global said, even on Saturday mornings. Affairs, will take place from March 9-11. Mayer believes that this results in part from the thematic organization and numtrate on something that had not been given edge,” as well as “the way in which power ber of lecturers, much atten- imbalances affect language use, commuwhich produce a tion already, nity and identity,” according to Mayer. greater coherence they She asked Associate Professor of An“The Rohatyn Center’s task is and of the topic, and wanted to thropology Marybeth Nevins and Kawashithe relevance of the to enrich the intellectual life of more central- ma Professor of Japanese Studies and theme to courses ly incorporate Dean of the Language Schools Steve Snyder taught at Middlethe College on themes that are the humani- to work alongside her as organizers, based bury. ties into the on their respective experience in sociolininternational in nature. To get “[The conferwork of the guistics and translation. ence] has this really enriched in the theme, in different Rohatyn CenAbout 45 to 50 people applied to presexciting and intellecter. ent their work at the conference, and tual buzz,” she said. aspects of the theme, is really to As a pro- Mayer, Nevins and Snyder evaluated them This year’s conference has already pause and to ask certain kinds of fessor of ge- based on the excellence of their 250 word ography and extracts. They focused in particular on the generated a great questions – hopefully new ques- a nationalism geographical and historical focus of the amount of interest. Mayer received an tions – to get educated about it. ” scholar, May- scholars’ works to ensure that both the er was curi- classical and modern periods, as well as a email from a faculty Tamar Mayer ous about the geographical breadth, will be represented. member in a RusThe goal was to assemble a group of Robert R. Churchill Professor of Geoscience relationship sian University hopof language scholars whose lectures would not only fall ing to attend, and Director, Rohatyn Center to national under the conference’s theme of language she said that everyidentity and and identity, but would generate intellecone she has spoken how these tual conversation. to about the confertwo function “The Rohatyn Center’s task is to enence has been quite eager. “It has now gotten a life of its own,” she in the face of inevitable cultural and politi- rich the intellectual life of the College on cal changes. themes that are global and international in said. “I’m very excited.” In particular, she was interested in lannature,” Mayer said. “To get enriched in the Mayer has led the organization of all five annual conferences. Though she and the guages that have become endangered as a theme, in different aspects of the theme, is Rohatyn Center’s steering committee had result of such changes because, she said, really to pause and to ask certain kinds of originally generated a list of conference “It’s not just language — if the language is questions — hopefully new questions — to get educated about it.” topics all the way through 2021, she said endangered so is the culture.” The two main sub-themes the conferThe speakers have been organized into that the list is flexible. The steering committee came up with ence will examine focus on the “the impact sessions based on their lecture topic, and this year’s conference theme in April of last of the production and circulation of texts, each session carries a theme of its own. The year, discarding the original idea of “The over time and place, on practices of writing, full schedule can be found on the Rohatyn Child Migrant.” They wanted to concen- reading and the transmission of knowl- Center’s website.
JOIN THE CAMPUS cover events on campus. have your voice heard. engage with a readership that includes faculty and alums. [ for inquiries, email us at campus@middlebury.edu ]
How to Find Their Clit
Mike and I met at a party. Mike and I are now making out in his hall. Now we’re making out in his bed. Now we’re naked in his bed. Now he’s bent over me and … yes! He’s doing it. He’s actually going to go down on me. Score! …or not. After two minutes I say, “I want you inside me.” His head is out of there real quick. Then the condom’s on and he’s inside me and I’m lying there, enjoying the sex but also wondering, WHY ISN’T THERE A SINGLE MAN ON THIS CAMPUS WHO KNOWS HOW TO GO DOWN ON ME?! Very few women orgasm from vaginal intercourse or from just penetration. Most people with vaginas need clitoral stimulation to get off – and this is where our dear partners fail us. Much of the blame can be placed on the general lack of sex education available to us when we’re growing up, but the reality is that most people (straight men, I’m looking at you) don’t know how to please us, especially when it comes to oral sex. And frankly, oral is what many of us need to reach orgasm. I have talked to too many people on this campus whose partners just don’t know what to do with mouths and vaginas. But I think I can help. Here’s what I know: First, some basic sex education. The clitoris is a small bump covered by a hood of skin at the top of the vaginal area. Typically, the labia come together just above the clitoral hood. Now, when you’re searching for the clit, it doesn’t have to be a lost-my-glasses on the floor type situation. It can be sexy. In oral, foreplay is everything. Kiss your partner all over, massaging and slowly heading toward the clit. Kiss the labia, spread them apart gently with your fingers and peer inside. The hood and clit look different on different people, but it should be the first landmark as you trace a line from their bellybutton. From there, yeah, it’s complicated. People are complicated. Different partners will like different pressures, patterns of movement, etc. They might be uncomfortable with some things. How will you navigate this situation? Let’s return to the founding principle of this column: communication. If you’ve made it down there and located your partner’s clit, there is a lot of pressure and tension. Your partner is lying back, praying you’ll know what’s up. You’re there, thinking the exact same. This moment tends to be dead silent. Your partner may want to say something, but might be worried about scaring you away or putting pressure on you or on themselves to perform. As the goerdowner, (assuming you have already gotten consent for this because we all get that at this point, right? Right?!) the best thing you can do is ask, “Do you like this?” Ask it any time you switch things up or try a new technique. Once you break the ice, it will be a lot easier for both partners to talk about what they’re enjoying and what isn’t quite working out. Mechanically speaking, start touching the clit through the clitoral hood – it can be painful to have direct clitoral stimulation, especially if you aren’t turned on yet. Try light pressure and then try more pressure. Ease into it. Try circles, side-to-side, up-down or even the alphabet. Once you’ve mastered the basics, try to think about rhythm – build your partner up and then release the tension a little, build it up, release, and so on. Once you want to make her come, find one motion that’s working and stick to it, maybe increasing pressure and speed. (If your tongue gets tired, by all means take a break and use your fingers for a while.) The number one way to do a good job and have a good time is to communicate with your partner. And for heaven’s sake, educate yourself. There is great information online. Besides that, enthusiasm can go a long way. Write to sexpantheratmidd@gmail.com with stories or questions. (Only I read these and it’s completely anonymous!) Xoxo, Sex Panther
16 features Scholars Discuss Nuclear Weapons in North Korea
| March 9, 2017
By Alex Newhouse multitude of tools available to sleuth imFeatures Editor portant information from it. One of the On Tuesday, Feb. 28, Jeffrey Lewis first steps they took was to determine and Melissa Hanham gave a lecture at whether or not the North Korean governMiddlebury College on their work using ment had manipulated the photo after it open-source intelligence to make con- had been taken. “Sometimes they cheat, sometimes clusions about the North Korean nuclear they do a little photoshopping, a little weapons program. Lewis and Hanham, researchers at cloning, a little airbrushing, especialthe James Martin Center for Nonpro- ly around Kim Jong-Un’s apparently liferation Studies (CNS) at the Middle- hideous ear that he’s really afraid of,” bury Institute of International Studies Hanham said. “In this particular case, the very first in Monterey, spend their time carefully studying satellite imagery, media, and thing we do is we contact our friend at geospatial data for clues to the enigmatic Reuters who sends us photos directly from North Korea,” Hanham continued. activities of the North Korean regime. During this talk, they showed off some “So these are photos that have not been of their methods for determining missile recycled through a photo system, they capabilities, nuclear test strength and are raw photos as they come from North Korea. And we even photograph locarun it through tions based on a single photograph. “Sometimes [the North a software … and we looks Their lecture came shortly after the New Korean government] cheats, for any kind of edits or alteraYork Times published sometimes they do a little tions which may a piece on their work, and the premise for the photoshopping, a little clon- show that this has some sort of talk was to go into more depth on the subject ing, a little airbrushing, es- fakery in it. This matter covered in the pecially around Kim Jong- photo was completely clean. article. Specifically, Lewis Un’s apparently hideous ear This photo was as proof. and Hanham focused that he’s really afraid of.” offered This was supon the famous “disco posed to be eviball” photograph pubdence.” lished by the North Jeffrey Lewis Because of Korean government in MiiS Researcher the fact that March 2016. In the phoNorth Korea had tograph, North Korean already provided leader Kim Jong-Un can be seen standing around a metal ball – pictures of the missile before, and Lewis claimed to be a miniaturized nuclear de- and Hanham had been able to detervice – and in front of a large missile on a mine its dimensions, they were subsequently able to estimate the diameter, mobile transport. In the past, such as during the Cold volume,and even weight of the device War, it would be nearly impossible for in the foreground based on its relative anyone but the governments of the Unit- distance from the missile in the backed States or Soviet Union to do anything ground. Discovering this, they were able to conclude that this device — if it is real with such a photo, Lewis explained. “If you talk to people, one of the ques- and works, and it at least appears like it tions they have is, ‘How do you study would — can fit on the top of a ballistic missile. that? Because it’s secret,’” Lewis said. But their understanding of the proHe stated that the advent of digital photography, the internet and smart- gram does not stop at this. Hanham and phones have made data that once would Lewis wanted to find out more about the have actually been secret accessible to patterns of North Korean nuclear testing, so they and other CNS researchers the general public. “The way that I explain how we’re able began building three-dimensional modto do this is: Think about your [smart] els of the terrain using satellite imagery phone,” he said. “Your phone takes the and geospatial rendering technology. They knew the general location and picture, there is no developing it, it’s digital, it encodes it with metadata that yield of the tests from seismic data, and if you leave the metadata on, says where then it was their task to match that data and when you took it; and then this de- with the imagery to formulate a tervice accesses the web and you can share rain model. This includes, for example, that image with everyone in the world in- searching satellite photos for the telltale stantaneously. This opens up new ways sign of testing activity. “A nuclear test site will have support of studying this particular problem.” Thus, when the “disco ball” image was facilities, and then they’ll have tunnels released, Lewis, Hanham and CNS had a or ‘adits,’” Hanham said. “Doesn’t mat-
new york times
North Korean leaders examine the “disco ball” that is at the center of Lewis and Hanham’s lecture. ter if you’re in Russia, or if you’re here, lite images taken at high frequencies to you always have these kinds of things. show the evolution of certain behaviors, Then there’s other features like, you may such as Chinese enforcement of sanchave spoil piles because they’re tunnel- tions on North Korea. ing out, you may have security fences.” Lewis and Hanham both stressed, “My favorite signature is nicely paved however, that their work is not someroads in very poor countries that dead- thing far beyond the scope of the general end in the mountains,” Lewis added. public. Nor is it just limited to those who Pointing at a satellite image of the study political science. testing facilities, Lewis indicated a “[These tools] equalize the playing small, trapezoidal object on the side of field,” Hanham said. “I’m from Canada, one of the mountains. “[This] shows the I have two two-year-olds, [and] I have no bearing that the tunnel goes into the special skills other than a master’s demountain,” he said. “That’s going to help gree and a certificate in nonproliferation us figure out where all the nuclear tests studies from the Middlebury Institute happen because and a desire to do countries tend “If you study internation- this, and an internet to build straight connection. That’s al relations, that’s great. If tunnels for obvireally what it comes ous reasons, and you’re sitting here and think- down to. It used to they branch off be that only the Soing, ‘But I don’t study inter- viet Union and the them.” By using these national relations, I do other United States could techniques, they practice this trastuff,’ we really want you. ” decraft. And now, discovered that the North KoreJeffrey Lewis you can too. Everyan underground one in this room can Miis researcher do this too. We’re tests followed a surprisingly fagoing to show you miliar pattern. In some of the ways we fact, the layout of do it.” the mines nearly perfectly mirrored the “Let me put in a pitch for the stulayout of American nuclear testing facili- dents,” Lewis said. “If you study internaties, and Lewis and Hanham had found tional relations, that’s great. If you’re sitout that the North Koreans were utiliz- ting here and thinking, ‘But I don’t study ing declassified American testing infor- international relations, I do other stuff,’ mation to build their own program. we really want you. We have a lot of great Lewis and Hanham went on to explain students who study international relathat these examples highlighted just tions and [political science], and that’s some of the tools that they use in their wonderful. But we also need people who work. Sometimes, for instance, they will can do all the technical things, and it’s dive deeper into certain images, looking only when we have a diverse community at photographic analysis to figure out of expertise that I think we can really do where an image may have been photo- this kind of work.” shopped. Other times they will use satel-
The official pizza of the Middlebury Campus
GREEN
PEPPERS
LOCAL | HANDCRAFTED | FRESHLY PREPARED |AT YOUR CONVENIENCE
[802] 388-3164
Advertisements 17
march 9, 2016 |
INTERESTED IN WRITING AND JOURNALISM?
JOIN THE CAMPUS
COVER SPORTS, NEWS, FEATURES AND MORE SINCE YOU’RE INTERESTED, EMAIL US AT CAMPUS@MIDDLEBURY.EDU
arts & sciences Kannapolis Composes Picture of the Past By Sarah Boyle Contributing Writer
On Mar. 4, the Mahaney Center of the Arts showcased “Kannapolis: A Moving Portrait,” a performance art piece combining historical home videos and lively folk music to depict life in North Carolina during the Great Depression. This project is the brainchild of acclaimed composer and performer Jenny Scheinman, who created this work to “remind us of our resilience, and of our immense capacity for joy even in the hardest of times.” From the years 1936 to 1942, filmmaker H. Lee Waters travelled throughout the mill town of Kannapolis, N.C., recording the daily lives of average people during the Depression. Waters was inspired to document these ordinary people’s experiences because he felt that during that time of financial hardship, Americans were not willing to spend money on entertainment, but “would love to see themselves on the screen like movie stars.” Over this period of six years, Waters created 118 films that encapsulated the many ways of life in Kannapolis.
Scheinman was approached by Aaron Greenwald, executive director of Duke Performances, to create a body of work based off of Waters’ footage. After viewing one of the films, Scheinman was enamored by its realism and compared it to “seeing ghosts in perfect focus.” From there, Scheinman wrote and compiled songs to accompany the films, mostly fiddle tunes that were inspired by the music players featured in the footage. Then with the assistance of director Finn Taylor she consolidated her song list to include pieces that represented the main themes of the work: “labor, community, dancing, film, industry and childhood.” The result is a diverse portrait of the citizens of Kannapolis during this brief window of time. The live music and footage combine to recreate the past, allowing viewers to feel like they are walking around the town square, dancing in the streets or working at the looms. The townspeople’s openness, happiness and intimacy with the camera is surprising given the time, but demonstrates that they were not all that different from us today. Additionally, it sheds light on their ability to enjoy the simple mo-
Office of communications
Jenny Scheinman wrote music and performed music to accompany the footage. ments when life is extremely challenging. Focusing on the mill town of Kannapolis gives viewers a glimpse into a lost world. At the time of filming Kannapolis was the “City of Looms” where Cannon Mills, the largest employer of textile laborers in the country, operated its factory. Sadly, all workers lost their jobs in 2003 and the mill was destroyed
oGFT blogspot
Footage of life in Kannapolis, North Carolina during the Great Depression was the subject of Kannapolis: A Moving Portrait.
The Reel Critic By Will DiGravio News Editor
Written and directed by Damien Chazelle, “La La Land” tells the story of Sebastian Wilder (Ryan Gosling) and Mia Dolan (Emma Stone), two struggling artists who fall in love after they repeatedly run into each other on the streets, in the restaurants, and parties of the Los Angeles social scene. Wilder is a jazz musician who rejects the modernization of the genre and dreams of opening a nightclub where only classical jazz is played. As tribute to Charlie Parker, he wants to name his club “Chicken on a Stick.” Dolan is an actress who, in between unsuccessful auditions, works as a barista on the Warner Brothers lot. Like Sebastian, Mia is an old soul, whose love of film and want to be an actress came from watching classic cinema with her aunt. At its core, the film is a fantasy. The two are bonded by their desire for a Los Angeles that no longer exists. Chazelle’s story takes place in a kind of dreamworld, where Mia and Sebastian are able to pursue their desires in a romanticized Los Angeles.
The film will be classified as a musical, but it really isn’t. Truly, it is a cross between a melodrama and romantic comedy, with a few song and dance numbers that add a dash of color and play into the fantasy of it all. Though the film’s musical numbers are banal, they do not detract from the film. Stone and Gosling are not the multi-faceted performers — Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers — that they try to emulate. Neither excel at dancing, thus making for weak and boring choreography. And they are not particularly good singers either, though Stone is by far the better of the two. Gosling should never sing again. Thankfully, the musical numbers are few and far between, and the film is saved by the pair’s superb acting. Like the actors themselves, Mia and Sebastian bring out the best in one another. Mia accompanies Sebastian to gigs, where she dances in the crowd and encourages him to pursue his passion and be a better performer. Sebastian helps Mia realize her talent as a playwright, urging her to write, produce and star in a one-woman show. While neither of them is making any money, they are pursuing
La La land
don’t
miss
this
their passions and, for the first time, are truly happy. They are in “la la land.” As their relationship grows more serious, Mia’s mother calls her to inquire about Sebastian’s career. Mia tells her that he wants to open his own jazz club and will “figure it out.” After he overhears their conversation, Sebastian comes to realization that he must find a more stable job if he wants to have a real life and relationship with Mia. He reaches out to an old classmate Keith (John Legend), who offers him a job as a keyboardist in his jazz band. Keith’s band is a blend of jazz, pop and funk — the new wave of jazz that Sebastian detests. Even though he hates the music, Sebastian accepts the job in order to earn a steady income. To the film’s detriment, Chazelle hardly tells Mia’s story. As Sebastian goes on tour with his band, Mia is working on her show, and while she is more charming and interesting, her creative process is not explored. The film is Sebastian’s and Mia is a passive character. Sebastian’s decision to join Keith’s band drives him and Mia apart. One night, when he is home from the tour, Mia questions his decision to abandon his dream. A fight ensues, and Sebastian accuses Mia of no lon-
in 2006. Looking back on this time of American production allows for viewers to revel in the changes in our society since then. The film’s editors conscientiously tried to integrate the footage so that all different groups were represented throughout the work. When watching the original films the segregation of the subjects are obvious. The editors strode to unify the racial divide of the time by displaying shots in both black and white groups right after one another. Many of the shots in the different racial communities mirror each other, contributing to the idea of a unifying depiction of all citizens. In doing this, Scheinman hopes that the film is “more available to us today” and allows it to resonate within our society. In this time of social and political upheaval, it is important to look to the past in order to brace the future. All viewers can take away from “Kannapolis: A Moving Portrait” that humans have dealt with hardship in the past and still have found ways to keep dancing. The inspired music and honest footage of this performance allows for this lively town to be preserved in time so we can learn from and appreciate their way of life.
ger loving him now that he is successful and she isn’t. In that moment, their relationship comes to a halt; they leave la la land and return to reality. They come to the realization that they cannot pursue their careers and be together, no matter how much they love one another. A typical movie will portray reality and deliver a fantasy, where the man/woman gets the job and the girl/guy. Chazelle rejects this norm, and uses the fantasy of “La La Land” to showcase an unfortunate reality: the irreconcilable nature of love and ambition. In the end, both Mia and Sebastian are forced to choose between the two. The final scenes of “La La Land” comprise one of the most original endings that I have seen in a long time. In a beautiful and breathtaking sequence, Chazelle provides the audience with a glimpse into what could have been had Mia and Sebastian chosen a different path. The sequence challenges our preconceived notions of love. Is it a roadblock or bridge on the road to success? What matters more: one’s romance or career? “La La Land” forces us to contemplate these questions and the very nature of love, and it does so in a charming and intellectually honest way.
“Type/Caste”
Solomon Northup’s Middlebury Connection
“For Colored Girls”
A queer, black actor dreams of a dazzling career on the American stage but first he’ll have to leap over obstacles placed by an industry that isn’t always welcoming to applicants who are neither white nor straight. Based on Rotimi Agbabiaka’s real life experience as a professional actor. 3/9, THURSDAY, 8 P.M., WILSON HALL
Professors of History Bill Hart and Amy Morsman discuss their research projects on the Northup family and their dramatic place in the story of race, slavery and freedom in antebellum America. Henry Kinsman Solomon Northup, whose memoir “12 Years a Slave” provided the narrative basis for the eponymous film. 3/10, FRIDAY, 12:15 P.M., MUSEUM OF ART
Passionate and fearless, “For Colored Girls,” written by Ntozake Shange, reveals what it means to be of color and female in the twenty first century. The choreopoem is performed by a cast of seven nameless women identified by color, and tells their stories of coming of age and sisterhood as Black women. 3/9-11, THURS.-SAT., 7 P.M.,10 FRI., HEPBURN ZOO
arts & SCIENCES 19
March 9, 2017 |
Visiting Scholar Talks Artificial Intelligence By Sabina Haque Contributing Writer
“What questions would Turing ask now?” Grosz asked the audience, commenting on how the world has changed On Tuesday, Feb. 28, students and since the 1940s. faculty in the computer science departGrosz’s research revolves around the ment gathered to hear Barbara J. Grosz, central question: “Could we build a comHiggins Professor of Natural Sciences at puter team member that would behave Harvard University, speak in McCardell over the long term in such a way that Bicentennial Hall. Her talk was entitled, people on the team will not notice it’s not “From the Turing Test to Smart Partners: human or think it’s stupid?” ‘Is Your System Smart Enough to Work In asking this question, Grosz seeks with Us?’” to direct her research efforts to develop Grosz was this year’s Phi Beta Kappa a Turing test modified for the modern Visiting Scholar computing age, from the School in which people “Could we build a computer of Engineering work with many team member that would and Applied Sciindividuals and ences at Harvard systems all over behave over the long term University, and the world. She she gave two talks in such a way that people on said that humans at the College last build the team will not notice it’s should week: a general computers and not human or think it’s stu- machines lecture for the that public on Monday pid?” augment human afternoon, and a intelligence, not more technical replace it. In dopresentation of ing so, she asserts Barbara grosz that this strategy her research on Tuesday. In addi- Higgins professor of natural sciences at harvard university promotes fluent tion, Grosz visited teamwork beseveral classes in tween humans the computer sciand computers, which supplies us with a ence department and had lunch with the cohort of compelling scientific and techMiddlebury College Women in Computer nological challenges to tackle. Science (wiCs++) Club. Grosz interjected the lucid conceptual Having had ample opportunity to en- illustration of her research with stories gage with students and faculty during her about her past academic work. A partime at the College, Grosz began Tues- ticularly memorable anecdote involved a day’s talk with familiarity toward those lunch conversation with Noam Chomsky in the room who attended her previous and the other graduate students in her lecture. She then lab. When she exdelved into a displained her PhD [Grosz] said that humans cussion of Alan research, Chomshould build computers and sky said that her Turing’s “Mind” paper, in which he machines that augment subject, “sounds presents the Turnice, but is imposhuman intelligence, not ing test for comsible.” replace it. In doing so, she puters. Written at “I went home a time when powand did something asserts that this strategy erful machines impossible,” Grosz promotes fluent teamwork said, finishing the had just emerged out of the Second between humans and com- anecdote with a World War, Tursmile. puters, which supplies us ing’s paper poses Grosz then the philosophiwith a cohort of compelling delved into a decal question: “Can scientific and technological scription of three these machines applications of her challenges to tackle. think?” In asking SharedPlans Thethis question, Turory, an abstract ing became the fatheoretical model ther of artificial intelligence and theoreti- of the teamwork-oriented understanding cal computer science. Grosz questioned of the Turing test she discussed earlier. the notion of computers being able to She started with using the theory as a de“think,” and discussed her research on ar- sign guide, in which her team used a comtificial intelligence in the context of Tur- puter in a classroom to monitor students ing’s framing. and “diagnose” whether or not they strug-
Harvard university
Barbara Grosz was this year’s Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar. gled with the material. From the data collected by the computer, a new type of plan recognition could emerge. With regards to system specification, a computer could also be used to develop probability recipe trees, where it would assign probability to various outcomes of an event and weigh the cost of interrupting the user against the utility of doing so. For example, Route A might be more favorable than Route B under normal circumstances, but a lastminute traffic jam on Route A may change the user’s course of action. Such probability recipe trees can evolve over time based on new information, providing an interesting application of teamwork. Finally, Grosz discussed the use of the SharedPlans Theory from an analytic lens
in health care. When multiple doctors are involved in treating an individual, computers could be used to develop an effective plan for complex care. The teamwork defined in this instance involves looselycoupled challenges, which make sharing information between various groups while avoiding overload difficult. Throughout the hour, Grosz interjected career lessons such as, “Don’t listen to the naysayers until you’ve really tried.” Grosz ended her talk by sharing more wisdom with her audience about the nature of research. “Formulating the problem is the heart of research,” Grosz said. “It’s very different from just solving problems.”
large a landscape as possible with discontinuous cuts. Beyond the story, which can at times become confusing, the movie creates a unique and unsurpassed atmosphere of cyberpunk-infused science fiction sprinkled with unparalleled action sequences. It is difficult to describe the exhilaration of watching the bikers in the first scene, realizing what mysterious government experiments have wrought or witnessing the nervous excitement of the finale. By paying attention to the detailed animation and the flawlessly assimilated soundtrack, it is easy to lose yourself in the world of the film without attaching yourself to the characters or the story, but to the events happening on the screen. Akira involves its audience from multiple perspectives: sometimes you see only what the protagonist sees, but other times, you see the entire city from an omniscient perspective. The variety and frequency of these shifts in perspec-
tive make the movie all the more thrilling. Despite the feelings it bestows on the average audience member, Akira has some difficulties stemming mostly from the process of adapting the manga comic. Characters for which dozens of pages were devoted in the manga have mere cameos in the film, and the attempts to tell the full story do not always work well. The potential for confusion, given the compressed plot and many characters, is vast, so do not to worry about confusion. Those seemingly extraneous characters or digressions from the main story help to build the story world, make it seem living and energetic. Despite its flaws, this film remains one of the best introductions to anime available and an excellent watch in general. A DVD copy of this film can be found in the library.
The Reel Critic By John Gosselin Contributing Columnist Akira (1988) has an outstanding reputation today in Japan and America as one of the finest examples of a bigbudget action-adventure anime feature. Epic in scale, the entirely hand-drawn city of Neo-Tokyo comes to life in a massive story featuring dozens of characters, all with unique motivations. Based off the best-selling manga comic of the same name, Akira did a great deal to introduce the West to anime and to establish a standard of animation quality which has not been surpassed since its release. If you are looking to start watching anime, this film is as good a place to start as any, especially if you would like to see adult themes in animation. One of the best parts of this movie is
that it adheres closely to a distinct animation style which creates a tension between the realistic look of the characters and the patently unrealistic events unfolding onscreen. For example, the opening scene, a fantastically orchestrated bike race, includes some of the smoothest, most accurate animation I have seen, but the chase itself does not seem to make much linear sense. The bikers start, cued by the outstanding soundtrack, but then the film cuts to images of the city instead of focusing on the bikers. These shots all look as real as possible, with incredible attention to detail — especially the way the bikes’ lights interact with the objects around them. After a few quick shots of the bikers racing through the city, they suddenly leave it, creating more discontinuity. Scenes in this film tend to work in this fashion, painting as
Akira
20
arts & SCIENCES
|march 9, 2017
Performing Arts Sp TLight: the doric String quartet By Qian Li (Audrey) Contributing Columnist Lauded by The Strad magazine as “inventive, engaging, moving and beautiful” and The New York Times as “a superb ensemble, intelligent, technically brilliant, wonderfully balanced,” the Doric String Quartet is a rising star on the chamber music scene, taking its place among the finest quartets of its generation. The Doric String Quartet has collaborated with prestigious artists, many of them having also appeared on the Middlebury College Performing Arts Series. The ensemble has performed in venues around the world, including leading concert halls like Amsterdam Concertgebouw, Vienna Konzerthaus and Berlin Konzerthaus. And now, they are here. On Thursday, March 9, this U.K.-
based ensemble will come to the College for the first time with a free concert. The audience will be treated to a program including Mendelssohn’s Quartet in Eflat Major, the Lyric Suite by Berg and Schubert’s dramatic G Major quartet. Formed in 1998 at Pro Corda, a national school for young chamber music players in Britain, the Doric String Quartet later studied in the Paris-based ProQuartet Professional Training Program and at the Music Academy in Basel. In 2015, the quartet was appointed Teaching Quartet in Association at the Royal Academy of Music in London. Over the decades, the Doric String Quartet has firmly established itself as the leading British string quartet of its generation, receiving enthusiastic responses from audiences and critics across the globe. Selected for representation by Young Classical Artists Trust in
2006, the quartet went on to win several major awards including first prize at the 2008 Osaka International Chamber Music Competition in Japan, second prize at the Premio Paolo Borciani International String Quartet Competition in Italy and the ensemble prize at the Festspiele Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in Germany. According to The Financial Times, “Their performance was unusually introspective, but always alive. The first violin, Alex Redington, has a distinctive sweetness to his tone, allowing the darker colours of viola and cello a potent influence in the mix of sound, and sometimes he leads his three colleagues into the softest, most withdrawn playing.” The quartet made a triumphant American debut in 2010 with recitals at the Frick Museum in New York and Library of Congress in Washington. “Doric String Quartet keeps genre
young and vital,” The Washington Post says. “The group projects a sweet, finely blended tone, faultlessly deployed in Haydn’s slow movement, where first violinist Alex Redington found subtle colors to embellish a wistful little melody differently each time it returned.” This free concert is made possible with generous support from the Sunderman Family Concert Endowment Fund, in memory of Dr. F. William Sunderman Jr. and Dr. Carolyn Reynolds Sunderman. The concert will take place on Thursday, March 9, at 7:30 p.m. in the Mahaney Center for the Arts’s Robison Hall. Admission is free; no tickets are required. Audience members are advised to arrive early, as seating is available on a first-come, first-served basis.
George Gariner
The Doric String Quartet will perform in a free concert at the Mahaney Center for the Arts on Thursday, March 9.
Booking it By Gabrielle Owens Senior Columnist Malcolm Mackay’s novel The Necessary Death of Lewis Winter pulls the noir genre into 21st century, delving into a world of organized crime, hit men and drug deals combatted by surveillance cameras, smartphones and DNA tests. It is an intelligent page-turner, exploring the ugly underbelly of Glasgow’s crime world without reservation or melodrama. From corrupt cops to a femme fatale, Mackay takes stock characters and gives them his own individual twist. He also flips the script in the general structure of a crime novel: there is no mystery, no hunt for a killer, and therefore no major reveal at the end. Instead, Mackay introduces us to the murderer at the very beginning of the story. He is our protagonist, a young career hit man named Calum MacLean. The plot is relatively simple: a crime syndicate known as the Jamieson organization hires Calum MacLean to kill Lewis Winter, a small-time drug dealer who has been encroaching on their territory. Winter is not truly a threat himself, but just a proxy, his death a message to
people attempting to challenge the Jamieson organization. The novel follows the crime from beginning to end, starting with Calum accepting the job despite his reservations about becoming too closely tied to one organization, and then following the preparation, the lead-up from Winter’s own perspective, the execution itself. We then watch the fallout, from the police investigation to Winter’s girlfriend’s effort to turn the situation to her advantage to the ripples the hit sends through the crime world. As this is the first book in a trilogy, it leaves some threads hanging at the end, but it stands perfectly well on its own. The story it tells feels complete. If the story sells the book, the writing style occasionally leaves something to be desired. The entire book is in short, choppy sentences. Mackay never lingers on a description, and his language is never the least bit flowery. He is abrupt to the point that it sometimes feels his sentences have been hacked off with an absolute word limit. While this undoubtedly helps set the mood and tone of the novel, as well as giving personality to the omniscient narrator, it is so unvaried as to become tiresome. It is less noticeable
the necessary death of lewis winter
as you get further into the novel and get used to it, but the first couple chapters are slightly aggravating to sit through. The narrator also uses a second person, direct address to the reader, which sometimes slips you into the novel as a voyeur or an accomplice to the crime, but more often feels awkward and out of place. Still, elements of Mackay’s style are excellent for the story he is telling, even if they could use some refining. Mackay has a particular ability to set your heart pounding with scenes of cold-hearted premeditation in a way you would usually associate with car chases or fight sequences. There is very little action in this story. Besides the murder of Winter himself, there is really only one other moment of violence — and yet this book reads lightning fast. It catches your attention and holds it until the end. Calum’s planning is intriguing and fantastically detailed, showing off his competence and no-nonsense approach to his work. The murder in this novel has no passion; it is all about technique. As the tag line on the back of the book reads, “It’s easy to kill a man. It’s hard to kill a man well.” It is Calum’s diligence to the latter task that engages us and makes us root for him. While many of the characters owe their basic outline to crime and noir literature archetypes, all of them are fully
rounded individuals. Winter’s girlfriend, Zara, is a particularly good example. She is the femme fatale of the piece: an opportunistic woman caught up in a crime, unafraid and even experienced in using her sexuality to get what she wants, more concerned with making money out of the situation than with a moral code. However, we are shown many of the scenes from her point of view, and given insight into her thoughts and plans. This shifts her from the clichéd mysterious and dangerous woman into an actual human character with clear motivations, hopes and plans that sometimes work and sometimes fail. This is true of all the major players in the novel. None of them are particularly set above the rest, either. Most of the characters are criminals, and even those that are not get their hands dirty to some degree, but none of the criminals are portrayed as incomprehensible monsters, either. These are flawed and layered people trying to survive a dangerous world. The Necessary Death of Lewis Winter is not without flaws, but as a thriller crime novel, it is excellent. If you are looking for a quick read that will pull you into an exciting story set in a cynically realistic world, this is a good book to pick up. Find it at the library at go/ bookingit.
arts & SCIENCES
March 9, 2017 |
Midd Mouth: featuring wentao zhai By Matthew Blake Senior Columnist This week’s MiddMouth poet is Wentao Zhai ’17. Wentao is a classics major. He grew up in Beijing, China and moved to Zimbabwe in 2009, where he completed high school. Here are some of his thoughts on poetry and translation. Matthew Blake (MB): How would you describe your relationship to poetry? Wentao Zhai (WZ): The Chinese poetic tradition has been something very dear
to me since my childhood. After having learned English, I wondered if it’s possible to deliver, or transfer, what I feel as a native speaker as I read these poems to an English-speaking audience. Since the English and Chinese languages are so dissimilar, this is of course very challenging. Apart from the language barrier, differences in their poetic tradition also makes translation difficult. It is often the case that a poem that has a beautiful flow in Chinese just does not “work” in English – which makes the cases where they do work all the more valuable, in my opinion. MB: How would you describe your creative process?
anonymous
Wentao Zhai ’17 is this week’s featured poet.
WZ: It’s hard to describe my creative process. Often it’s just a line, or turn of phrase, or even a word, that pops into my head, and I just start working from there. Personally I prefer translating the more flexible genre of “ci,” or song lyrics, as opposed to the denser, more rigid genre of “shi,” or formal poetry. In general these short poems feature universal elements such as the passage of time, lost love and motifs taken from nature; they also rely less on allusions and learned references to other texts. Below is a poem about a nostalgic dream. I divided each line into “word clusters,” in order to convey the discrete structure of these lines in Chinese.
蘇幕遮 Originally by 周邦彥 Translation by Wentao Zhai
燎沉、消溽暑。鳥雀呼晴、侵曉窺檐語。葉上初陽幹宿雨。水面清圓、 一一風荷舉。 故鄉遙、何日去。家住吳門、久作長安旅。五月漁郎相憶否。小楫輕 舟、夢入芙蓉浦。
Subtle incense smolders away summer damp. Dawn, intruder, bears witness to rooftop talks. Birds of song call for the sun. Night rain drying in newborn rays. On lotus leaves, clear and circular, above the waters, one by one, petals arise — in rising wind. Far, far is home. When may I go? Wanderer under walls of Chang’an, returning to creek-side gates... O fisher-boy in month of May! Do you not remember still? Little oars, a nimble boat, through shallows full of water lilies, slowly, slowly — into a dream.
21
22 sports
| march 9, 2017
Women’s Hockey to Host Norwich in NCAA Quarters Continued from page 24
“With six seconds left in the game I already had my gloves off and was unbuckling my helmet — I was too ready to celebrate.” Laven, reflecting as a senior, said that winning the NESCAC, especially back to back, is extremely important to her and that it meant a great deal moving forward. “It is really special to win the NESCAC championship as a senior and winning
was evidence of how far we have come as a team from the beginning of the season. But as excited as we are, we are still very hungry and focused to go as far as we can in NCAA play, one game at a time.” Several others on the team reflected on the weekend and the significance of their accomplishment. “This week was very special. The NESCAC is such a tough league and we knew going into the weekend that any of the re-
maining teams could win the whole thing,” said Elizabeth Wulf ’18, who has been instrumental to the team’s success as a power-play killer. “With that said, we knew we controlled our own destiny. It was the first time we played well in back to back games and we built off the atmosphere and the crowd’s energy.” Hlinka built on Wulf’s comments about the energy and noise that echoed around Kenyon’s walls.
“The atmosphere and energy were so important. From the crowd to the energy people were bringing in the locker room and on the bench, it was simply awesome,” said Hlinka. The Panthers have now won their last seven games. Young and Winslow are simply on fire, Sheline will continue her rookie of the year season and captains Laven and Watson will do all they can do lead their team to another NCAA Division III title.
men’s lacrosse overcomes cold and injury to beat conn. college By Colby Morris Senior Writer On Saturday, March 4, the Middlebury Men’s Lacrosse team bussed it down to New London, Ct., to settle in before their Sunday game against Connecticut College. Originally scheduled for Saturday, but moved due to frighteningly cold weather, the game was not only the season opener, but also a crucial NESCAC conference game against an opponent with an unusual style. Conn. College’s face-off centered play is different than most teams in the conference, and without their starting midfielder, John Jackson ’18, Middlebury was at a disadvantage. That disadvantage didn’t show on Sunday, however, as the southern trip prompted warmer weather and plenty of goals for the Panthers as the last three quarters decided the final score
at 8-6 in favor of Middlebury. Leaders for Middlebury were senior captain and goalkeeper, Will Ernst ’17, who made seven saves on ten total shots to effectively shut down the Camels’ attack and first year player Will Perry ’20 came in for the second half at goalkeeper, making two saves of his own on five attempts. Lastly, Parker Lawlor’s ’18 performance was also encouraging heading into the spring season as his three goals on five shots led the way to the win for Middlebury. Lawlor added one assist and only had one shot not on goal, matching his season total from last spring. Jake Schneider ’17 put up great numbers too as his two goals not only made up a significant portion of the Panthers’ points, but were also the first two points of the senior’s career. Wes Quinzani ’18, Jack Gould ’19 and Henry Riehl ’18 added one goal each to round out the eight total goals for Middlebury. Gould assisted Lawlor on
what turned out to be the decisive goal as the game was tied at six all with just over eight minutes remaining before the Panthers took a 7-6 lead, putting Middlebury up for good. Gould was positioned at the top wing and Lawlor was able to go under his defender while catching the pass from Gould on the run, dunking it into the goal. A.J. Kucinski ‘20, Clayton Read ’20, Ben Snow ’20, Will Perry ’20, and Jake Madnick ’20 all saw their first collegiate game action in the win as the Panthers boast 13 first year players on their roster of 45. Madnick had a solid day on the field as he was immediately thrust into a key role as the face off player, winning five of them. He won 5/10 face offs in the second half against Conn. College’s Ben Parens, the best in the country at his position. Middlebury took 47 shots compared to Conn’s 28, showing their domination on offense and with ball control
Squash Caps Campaign at Individuals By Will Case Sports Editor Last weekend, March 3-5, four members of the men’s squash team and three from the women’s team headed to Hanover, N.H., to take part in the College Squash Association Individual Championships. The event marked the official end of the 2016-17 collegiate squash campaign. On the men’s side, senior captain and the team’s no. one Wyatt French ’17 played in the final two matches of his competitive squash career. French split his two matches, beating Williams sophomore no. two John Fitzgerald in straight sets (11-6, 11-8, 12-10) and falling to St. Lawrence’s Belal Nawar in a closely contested threeset match (11-9, 11-7, 11-7). Along with French, the Panthers’ men’s side sent three first-years to the tournament – no. two Jacob Ellen ’20, no. four Will Cembalest ’20 and no. five Jack Kagan ’20. Kagan won one of his three matches, while Cembalest and Ellen dropped both of their two matches. Although Cembalest and Ellen did not win their matches, both first-years had opportunities to play high quality competition to send them into the offseason. Cembalest had the opportunity to face the Navy no. one, Jack Herold, and Ellen
by the Numb3rs 18
Points for Matt Folger ’20 against Lycoming, a career high for the firstyear forward.
Number of different players who scored goals for the women’s lacrosse team against Conn College.
36
Total points on the season for Jessica Young ‘18 after two goals and two assists this weekend, tops in the NESCAC.
Maddie Pronovost ’17’s highest pentathlon score this season heading into NCAA DIII Championships, best in the nation in 2017.
6
9
3,408
The number of chili categories the judges consider at chili fest. They are: veggie, Beef, Chicken, Game, Kitchen Sink and Pork. Yes, we wonder what’s in kitchen sink too.
had the opportunity to get on the court with Rochester’s Matt Toth and Conn. College’s senior no. one Matt Lillie. In his opening match, Kagan played Trinity’s Afeeq Ismail, with whom French matched up with at last year’s individual championships. After dropping the first game 11-3, Kagan hung with Ismail in the second and third games before falling 11-6 and 11-7. In the consolation quarterfinals Kagan defeated Wesleyans David Sneed in four sets (9-11, 11-5, 11-7, 11-7) and played Navy’s no. two, Senen Ubina, very closely in the consolation semifinals, even taking a set off of Ubina in a four-set match (8-11, 11-6, 11-3, 11-5). “I was really happy to come out with the win against the Wesleyan no. two,” Kagan said after a successful weekend to wrap of his first-year season. “I went in confident but he gave me a really tough match. I learned a lot from that one because it was a match I knew I could win, but I had to do the right things in order to come out on top.” Kagan had to adjust on the fly after he dropped the first set. “I had to figure out some things with my game in the process in order to win,” said Kagan. “I tend to learn a lot from these types of matches and found this one particularly fun and constructive.” Kagan said that part of the adjustments he made were due to differences between the Dartmouth and Middlebury courts. “I tried out some new shots, refined my drops and lobs, and tried to familiarize myself with how I was going to hit the shots I wanted to on the Dartmouth courts, which are very different from ours,” said Kagan. “I feel like I played some of my best squash this weekend, so I was happy that showed a little bit against the Navy no. two.” Kagan’s had said that he kept a winning mindset going into the match with Herold, which was bolstered by Kagan’s first set victory. “I went in knowing I could win but after I won the first game Herold definitely quit hitting lobs and starting attacking with kills and drops, which was the right move,” said Kagan. “The way he changed his game plan, shortening the rallies and hitting harder, attacked my game plan
perfectly. I couldn't adjust.” Although they went 1-6, the individual championships were invaluable for the first-years. If nothing else, it brought them opportunities to collectively play seven extra matches that they would not have had the chance to play otherwise. The first-year success theme also carried over on the women’s side, as Annie Glassie ’20 even managed to take back some hardware for her win in the consolation bracket of her draw. Due to a scheduling anomaly Glassie actually got a pair of byes through the consolation quarter- and semifinals of her draw. Glassie split her two matches, dropping the first to Drexel’s no. one Ryan Morgan and winning her second against Dartmouth’s Julia Potter. The Panthers’ no. one, sophomore Bea Kuijpers ’19, also had a successful weekend split to wrap up the season. She easily defeated the Bates no. three, Vicky Arjoon, in straight sets and then played the Princeton no. four and lost in a tightly contested three set match. Fellow sophomore and Panthers’ no. three Alexa Comai ’19 owned what was probably the most under-theradar weekend. Despite losing both of her matches, Comai took a game off the Dartmouth no. one and almost took two sets off of the George Washington no. two. “Because I was playing such good players my strategy was to be patient and consistent in trying to let my opponent make the error,” said Comai. “Additionally, I wanted to try to be super aggressive on the T and volley as much as possible.” Like Kagan and her other teammates who competed last weekend, Comai saw it as a chance to test herself against some of the best players in the collegiate ranks. “I think playing such good players was a really good learning experience and I felt really lucky to have the opportunity to play” at the individual championships, said Comai. “I was also lucky to have [Head Coach] Mark [Lewis] there who was hugely helpful throughout the match.” The weekend provided an excellent jumping-off point for the squash program heading into an offseason in which the men’s team graduates three players from the starting nine and the women’s graduates only one.
— they simply managed to hold onto the ball better than the Camels. Midd had 14 turnovers compared to the home squad’s 16, and after going down 2-1 in the first quarter, won each of the remaining three. “We felt good about beating a NESCAC opponent in our first game as there are no easy conference contests,” said Chris Bradbury ’19 who saw time on Sunday in man down situation. After an out-of-conference match up with Endicott on Tuesday, March 7, the Panthers will be back in action in Medford, Mass., this Saturday, March 11, against Tufts.
The middlebury great eight RANKING
1 2
TEAM
The Robert Report
women’s hockey
A second-straight NESCAC championship was the only thing that could unseat the men’s basketball team from the top spot. You rock, ladies.
Men’s Basketball
You know that Middlebury athletics had a good week when winning your first and second-round NCAA tourney games only gets you the second spot.
Women’s lax
3 4 5 6 7 8
Did you forget that they’re still no. one in the nation after last year’s NCAA DIII title? Conn. College probably remembered somewhere in the second half of their 15-point L at the Panthers’ hands.
men’s lax
Opened the season with a big conference win over the Camels behind Parker Lawlor ’18’s three goals.
men and women’s squash
Great end-of-season individual efforts from a number of athletes at the College Squash Association Individual Championships.
indoor track & Field
After a quiet week in which only a handful of athletes competed at the Tufts Last Chance Meet, the Panthers will look to make some noise at the NCAA DIII Indoor Championships at North Central College in Illinois.
middlebury sports fans
A NESCAC championship every weekend, thrilling playoff matchups on the horizon for men’s basketball and women’s hockey… It’s a great day to be a Panther.
Seating Capacity in Pepin Gym
If we don’t let in the opposing fans in, then all the students who missed out on tickets can take their seats.
SPORTS23
march 9, 2017|
Men’s Basketball Looks to Defend Home Court in Sweet 16 Continued from page 24 each hit a three and the Panthers were up 54-42. Farmingdale stayed with it behind a clinical performance by forward George Riefenstahl, who drew fouls and scored at will in the paint. Farmingdale brought the game within 4 points, 75-71, but a basket from Daly and then consistent free-throw shooting from Majors and St. Amour helped Middlebury close out the contest. St. Amour had a relatively inefficient game shooting, as he scored 18 points on 5-18 shooting, although he did record six assists and five steals. On Saturday evening, the Panthers dominated Lycoming 95-76 behind a resurgent St. Amour. The NESCAC Player of the Year scored 30 points on 55 percent shooting to set an almost 30-year-old school record for points in a season (641) previously held by John Humphrey ’88. St. Amour also
claimed the school record for career threepointers (246). Middlebury started strong, taking a 13-8 lead behind an and-one from St. Amour, who took contact on the right baseline and before flicking the ball in an awkward 8-foot hook shot into the hoop. With the score knotted 19-19, Bryan Jones ’17 pushed the ball on the fast break and swung it to Folger, who cut straight down the lane for the slam over Lycoming forward Chris Wallace. That sparked pandemonium in the overflowing stands and an 18-0 run for the Panthers, during which St. Amour had two three-pointers and another and-one. Liam Naughton ’17 checked in and immediately whipped a nice pass to Eric McCord ’19 under the basket, who finished with a reverse layup. Lycoming ended their scoring drought off a layup by Trent Bishop, though Folger answered, sinking a shot assisted by Brown from beyond the arc. With great ball
movement and flinging the ball in transition, Middlebury looked like themselves. By the end of the half the Panthers seemed to start to waver on defense. They began giving up opportunities on the defensive glass and repeatedly turned the ball over. Luckily, they kept it going on the offensive end, as Jones recorded five-straight points, including an acrobatic reverse layup at the buzzer to send the Panthers into the locker room with a 20-point lead, 52-32. The Panthers stayed engaged in the second half. St. Amour made it rain from behind the arc, going four-of-eight from three point land and challenged Folger’s dunk for play of the game when, midway through the half, he deflected TJ Duckett’s pass and as it was about to go out of bounds, flung it ahead in transition behind his back to Daly, who drew the foul and finished the layup at the other end. That prompted “M-V-P” chants from the crowd.
Middlebury tightened up its defense, forcing Lycoming to take contested midrange jump shots for most of the half. Folger had a career high 18 points, going six-of-13 from the field, while Brown put on a passing clinic with 10 assists. Strong contributions from Daly, Folger and Majors buoyed the offense, but Brown will look to return to his current shooting form — he’s shooting a career-high 37 percent from long range — after scoring just six points on the whole weekend. “The atmosphere was incredible,” St. Amour said of this weekend’s games. “It was by far the best crowd I’ve ever played in front of. It was a really special experience and we’re so excited to be home next weekend. “I think it showed some of the importance of sports [at Middlebury]. Especially after Thursday’s events, it was cool to see everyone be able to come together and get behind one event as a whole school.”
Top-Ranked Women’s Lax Begins Title Defense With Big W By Jake Turtel Staff Writer Fresh off of last year’s nearly perfect season, which brought the program its sixth national championship, the women’s lacrosse team is eyeing another deep postseason run. Middlebury, however, lost several important players to graduation, including five of the team’s top six scorers from last year including Laurel Pascal ’16, Bridget Instrum ’16 and Katie Mandigo ’16. Pascal was a three-time, first-team All-American, who also tied for the fifth most goals in women’s lacrosse Middlebury history, 181, and scored them in only 82 games. Instrum was a second-team All-American, who tallied 156 points and Mandigo was last year’s NCAA tournament most valuable player
editors’ picks
protecting the net. Nonetheless, the Panthers did not seem to miss much as they hosted Connecticut College for their season opener. Women’s Lacrosse trounced Conn. College 19-4 last Sunday, Feb. 5 setting the stage for another successful season. Conn. College’s Annie Corbrooks scored first for the Camels just 42 seconds into the game. However, the Panthers soon took control. Hollis Perticone ’18 tied the game with an assist from Mary O’Connell ’17, and Henley Hall ’19 put Middlebury ahead for good off an assist from Emma McDonagh ’19 less than a minute later. Perticone netted her second goal of the game with an unassisted shot later in the half. Middlebury had turned the ball over 10 fewer times than their opponents, and had ground balls — Conn. College’s 11 to
Middlebury’s 18 — while Middlebury had more fouls (12) than Conn. College’s six. Most importantly, Middlebury outshot Connecticut College by a huge margin of 30 to nine. McDonagh had seven of those shots, while O’Connell paced the game in goals and assists, tallying four of each in the inaugural game of her senior season. Two Panther sophomores contributed four-point performances – Jenna McNicholas ’19 (two goals, two assists) and McDonagh (three goals, one assist). Casey O’Neill ’19 (one goal, two assists), and Henley Hall ’19 (two goals, one assist) had three point performances, while freshman Emily Barnard ’20 scored three goals to start her college career. Julia Keith ’20 recorded her first collegiate win, recording two saves and one goal allowed in the first half of play.
Not recording a point but still impacting the game, Evie Keating ’18 (a thirdteam All-American a season ago) picked up four ground balls and caused three turnovers. “It’s a great feeling to start the season with such an impressive showing by both the offense and defense. We had first years and returners stepping into some key roles all over the field, which certainly bodes well for the rest of the season,” says Keating. The score could have been even more lopsided. After scoring 15 goals in the first half, Middlebury focused on possession for the second frame, giving numerous players chances to contribute to the victory. It’s only one game, but what a start to their title defense.
Track and Field Championships: +/- 3.5 top-three finishes for the Panthers at NCAA Championships?
What will be higher: goals scored by Women’s Hockey in their first-round tournament game against Norwich, or goals allowed by Women’s Lax against Tufts?
Double down: Does Jack Daly ‘18 put up a double-double against Endicott and/or their next opponent this weekend? If so, does he do it with assists or rebounds?
Chilifest!!! Does the Chilifest title go to an entry from Middlebury or from somewhere outside the town?
Over. I’m with Rob on this one.
Women’s lax. Hockey is too good right now to give up more than 3 goals.
Yes, with assists. Daly is gonna go off with a doubledouble in assists.
Outside. The chili outside of Middlebury is too delicious to lose to the competition.
Over. The relay teams have been on fire and maybe an individual or two sneaks in there.
Lax goals against Look for both teams to get the dub, but it’s a more likely outcome lax gives up more goals than women’s hockey scores.
No. If he does, it’ll be points and rebounds.
The field. The Middlebury-to-everywhere else chili ratio will be too much to overcome for the shire town of Addison County.
Over. We’d get a million top-three finishes but I don’t think there are enough events.
Women’s lax goals against Women’s lax gives up more goals since they’re gonna be coasting in the second half.
Yes, with rebounds Triple-double if you count hustle points.
Outside. As much as I’d love for it to stay in Middlebury, the talent pool in the Burlington area is just too deep.
Over. Especially with the fast relay teams we’ve seen this season.
Lax goals allowed Women’s Hockey is good, but it’s really hard to score 10 goals (the amount Tufts scored on Midd in their last matchup).
Yes, with rebounds. He can make it happen.
Outside Midd. Honestly idk. I’m just excited to eat chili.
Sebastian Sanchez (18-9, .667)
will case (80-45, .640)
Robert Erickson (10-8, .555)
Emily Bustard (88-93, .486)
sports IT’S GOOD TO BE BACK!!
Michael O’hara
another conference crown for hockey Victory Tastes Sweet By Sebastian Sanchez Sports Editor
sports
inside
This past weekend was filled with women’s hockey as Middlebury hosted the NESCAC semifinals and championship games in Kenyon Arena on Saturday, March 4 and Sunday, March 5. Featuring the teams that had advanced from the past weekend’s quarterfinal round, Saturday’s matchups pitted the Panthers against Bowdoin College and Amherst College against against Conn. College. From the opening faceoff, the Panthers controlled the puck and carried their momentum throughout the entire game. Even though the team didn’t manage to score in the first stanza, the start of the second period highlighted Middlebury’s talented roster as Allie Aiello ’17 scored her first career goal on a beautiful give-andgo. Jessica Young ’18 set up Aiello who was posted at the bottom of the right circle and slapped the puck through the padded hands of Bowdoin’s goalie. Maddie Winslow ’18, who is Middlebury’s second leading scorer, took over the puck on a five-on-three power play in the tenth minute of the second period. Captain Carly Watson ’17 had directed the puck to Janka Hlinka ’18 in the slot, who touched into to the left where Winslow sent it in for her 12th of the season. Bowdoin, on the verge of what seemed like a shutout, broke through to score in the final minute of the second period after
a scuffle at the front of Middlebury’s net and the hosts headed into the final stanza with a 2-1 lead. Middlebury, however, owned the third period — the Panthers outshot the Polar Bears 15-0, scoring the third goal on a shot from the right circle by Jenna Marotta ’19, her first of the season. Having fallen behind by two, Bowdoin looked all but defeated and an exclamation point was stamped on Middlebury’s win as Young sealed the deal on a pass from Hlinka for her 15th of the season. Middlebury played true to their speed, agility and defense — Neuberger tallied nine saves and gave up one goal, the Panthers outshot the Polar Bears 35-10, Young extended her point-streak to six games and the team looked the best it has all season. “Our team chemistry has had its fair shares of ups and downs this year,” said Young. “But this past month we have really come together as a team and played for each other more than anything else. I think that really showed this weekend.” Facing a classic NESCAC rival in Amherst, Middlebury was prepared to leave it all on the ice in Sunday’s tilt. They played with grit and determination to win the NESCAC championship for the second straight year and the ninth time since the championship’s inception in 2002. The Purple and White struck first, however, sending Amherst fans into an excited frenzy. As
one might expect when the home team is behind, Middlebury fans quieted down somewhat and the air in the arena was tense and nervous all throughout the first period. The anxiety did not last long. In the 15th minute of the second period, Middlebury tied the game 1-1. Anna Zumwinkle ’20, who along with Lizzie Sheline ’20 is having an impressive first-year campaign, put a shot on goal that rebounded and was redirected by Sheline to Hlinka, who onetimed it into the back of the net. The hosts took the lead for good two minutes later when Young received a pass from Sheline and blasted a shot pass Amherst’s goalie for her team-leading 16th of the season. Middlebury continued its campaign with a goal by Sheline to take a 3-1 lead. Sheline, who was awarded the NESCAC Rookie of the Year, collected a pass in the slot from Young and beat the Purple and White goalie glove side for her eighth of the season. Trailing 3-1, Amherst could not answer any of Middlebury’s goals and Watson sealed the deal with 43 seconds left after Amherst pulled their goalie for her sixth of the season. Time expired and the arena exploded into cheers as fans watched the repeat champs celebrate on the ice. “Winning back to back championships is an amazing feeling and just a testament to how hard we have been working this past month,” said an excited Young. CONTINUED ON PAGE 22
WOMEN’S LACROSSE WIN BY 15 GOALS IN SEASON OPENER PAGE 23
By Phil Bohlman Senior Writer On Friday and Saturday, March 3 and 4, the men’s basketball team defeated Farmingdale State and Lycoming to advance to the NCAA Sectional Semifinals — the Sweet 16 — of the Division III Men’s Basketball Tournament. Middlebury will host Endicott on Friday, March 10, at 7:30 p.m. If they beat the Gulls, the Panthers will face the winner of no. 17 Susquehanna and Williams on Saturday, March 11, at 7 p.m. Endicott was one of three teams to defeat Middlebury this season, as the Panthers fell 9389 back in Pepin. However, that was all the way back in November and Middlebury blew a 12-point halftime lead. Endicott mounted a comeback in the second half, scoring 57 points on 60 percent shooting. Jake Brown ’17 fouled out early, playing just 7 minutes in the second half. Endicott upset no. 16 Salisbury in the first round of the tournament and blew out Nichols by 36 points in the second round — Middlebury is up against a team in top form. “We’re just treating it like another game,” Brown said when asked about their Endicott rematch. “Obviously everyone is pretty pumped to get to play them again, but I think this time around we’re a little more comfortable playing with a lead. We’re just trying to stay focused and continue to have fun.” On Friday night, Middlebury defeated Farmingdale State 84-75
behind double-doubles from Jack Daly ’18, 18 points, 10 rebounds, 6 assists and Adisa Majors ’18, who had 18 points and a career-high 11 rebounds. Though Farmingdale got out to an early 8-2 lead, tenacious play by Daly kept Middlebury in the game. He repeatedly pushed the ball in transition after every defensive rebound and finished with skill, displaying impressive body control and timing as he contorted around and flicked floaters over bigger defenders. He had 12 points in the half, one more than Farmingdale guard Matthew Graham, who was the backbone of the visitor’s offense in the frame. The Panthers’ interior defense wwas inconsistent, but careless turnovers by the Rams and tenacious defense by the Panther guards — St. Amour had three steals in the half and Brown had two — helped the home team keep it competitive. Though Middlebury led for a possession, Farmingdale retook the lead by the end of the half to make it 3632. Middlebury shook off their nerves and settled into their offense in the second half. They went back and forth with Farmingdale in the first few minutes, drawing even at 36-36 and 40-40 before going on an 14-2 run. Majors was key, showing his inside-outside game by scoring both in the midrange and at the basket with his array of spin and face-up moves. After a Farmingdale timeout, Matt Folger ’20 and St. Amour CONTINUED ON PAGE 23
MEN’S LAX WINS NESCAC OPENER PAGE 22